U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22-399 PDF 2005

COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL YOUTH

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

July 12, 2005

Serial No. 109-24

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thelma D. Drake, Virginia 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

John Barrow, Georgia

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio, Chairman

Cathy McMorris, Washington Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Luis P. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on July 12, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois ........................................................................................................ 5

Tiberi, Hon. Patrick J., Chairman, Subcommittee on Select Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce .............................................. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Osborne, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nebraska ........................................................................................................ 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Moore, Richard G., Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Planning Division, 

Iowa Department of Human Rights, Des Moines, IA ................................ 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

O’Grady, Dr. Michael J., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, 

DC .................................................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Sallee, Marguerite, President and CEO, America’s Promise—The Alliance 

for Youth, Washington, DC .......................................................................... 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Shubilla, Laura, President, Philadelphia Youth Network, Philadelphia, 

PA ................................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Steinberg, Dr. Laurence, Distinguished University Professor, Director, 

MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development 

and Juvenile Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA ..................... 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49

(1)

COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL YOUTH 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Select Education 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in 

room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patrick Tiberi 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Tiberi, McMorris, Osborne, Porter, Inglis, Fortuno, Davis, and Ryan. 

Staff Present: Kevin Frank, professional staff member; Lucy 

House, legislative assistant; Alexa Marrero, press secretary; 

Krisann Pearce, deputy director of education and human resources 

policy; Whitney Rhoades, professional staff member; Deborah 

Samantar, clerk; Kevin Smith, communications director; Denise 

Forte, legislative associate/education; Ricardo Martinez, legislative 

associate/education; and Joe Novotny, legislative assistant/education. 

Chairman TIBERI. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 

Select Education of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

will come to order. 

We are meeting today to hear testimony on the coordination 

among Federal youth development programs. 

Under Committee Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they may 

be included in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record remain open for 14 days to allow Member statements and other materials referenced here during the hearing to be submitted in the 

official hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. TIBERI, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Good morning and welcome. Thank you all for being here today. 

I want to thank our witnesses, both panels, for taking time to appear before the Subcommittee today on relatively short notice, to 

2

share your insights and your experience regarding issues surrounding Federal youth development programs, and offer suggestions as to where this Congress can go to assist the efficient and 

effective operation of these programs. 

I look forward to the testimony from all of you. 

At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, 

Congressman Tom Osborne, for an opening statement. I will yield 

my time to him. It is a pleasure to have him join us on the Select 

Education Subcommittee today. 

We came to Congress together in 2000, shared space next to each 

other on the fifth floor of the Cannon Building. I have great respect 

for the Coach on many levels, and thank you for your involvement 

in this issue. I yield to you as much time as you may consume. 

[The prepared statement of the Honorable Patrick J. Tiberi follows:]

Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Tiberi, Chairman, Subcommittee on Select 

Education, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning and welcome. Thank you all for being here today. 

I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to appear before the subcommittee today, on relatively short notice, to share insights and experiences regarding issues surrounding federal youth development programs, and offer suggestions as to where Congress can assist the efficient and effective operation of these 

programs. 

I look forward to your testimony. 

At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Coach Tom 

Osborne. It is my pleasure to have him join us on the Select Education Subcommittee today. 

I first had the privilege to work with Coach as part of the same freshman class, 

and as neighbors on the 5th floor of the Cannon House Office Building. 

I have a great respect for Coach on many levels and I commend his leadership 

on the topic of our hearing today—coordination among federal youth development 

programs. And hearing no objection, I would like to yield my remaining time to Mr. 

Osborne for a statement. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am still on the fifth 

floor and you have moved on to better things, I guess. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. OSBORNE. I thank you for allowing me to sit in on this Committee, and I’m obviously not a Member of the Committee, Subcommittee. 

The genesis of today’s hearing is the report of the White House 

Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, which was issued in December 2003. 

Among other things, the report said the following: roughly onefourth of U.S. adolescents are at risk of not achieving productive 

adulthood. I think everyone realizes that we have a great deal of 

dysfunction, family dysfunction. We have problems with drugs and 

alcohol. We have violence. We have promiscuity issues. 

A great number of young people are not doing very well at the 

present time. 

There are many Federal programs designed to help vulnerable 

young people, roughly 150. That’s a rough figure. It is an awful lot 

3

of them. There is obviously concern on the part of the Federal Government to help disadvantaged youth. 

However, there is little rigorous examination of the effectiveness 

of these programs. Few have quantifiable clear goals. 

There is considerable overlap and duplication of these programs, 

which is spread over roughly 12 different Federal agencies. Many 

of the programs have evolved into initiatives which has strayed far 

from the intent of the initial authorizing legislation. 

In many cases, program managers are prevented from communicating with other managers of similar programs by statute. They 

can’t legally even coordinate. 

We think this needs to be addressed. The Government Accountability Office report of 1997 calls the Federal response to youth 

failure a perfect example of, and I quote, ‘‘mission fragmentation.’’

The GAO recommends that programs with similar goals, target 

populations and services be coordinated, consolidated, or streamlined, and that’s what our proposed legislation attempts to do. 

A large number of youth serving groups approached me, Congressman Hoekstra, Congressman Ford and Payne, to introduce 

legislation based on recommendations of the White House Task 

Force on Disadvantaged Youth. 

I will just take a couple more minutes to describe the basic nuts 

and bolts of this Act. 

The Federal Youth Coordination Act creates the Federal Youth 

Development Council, and this would include members of 16 youth 

serving agencies, as well as disadvantaged youths themselves. We 

think it is important that we have young people who are in the system, who are in some cases not being served well, also be on the 

Council to provide input. 

The duties of the Council are as follows: No. 1, evaluate youth 

serving programs. No. 2, coordinate among Federal agencies with 

youth serving programs. 

No. 3, improve Federal programs that serve at risk youth, such 

as foster care, homeless, educationally challenged young people, 

and so on. 

No. 4, recommend ways to coordinate and improve programs in 

an annual report. 

Right now, there is no annual written document that has anything to do with how well these programs are doing. 

I think maybe the last two points are the most important. No. 

5, set quantifiable goals and objectives for Federal youth programs 

and develop a plan to reach these goals. 

In other words, each one of these programs should have measurable, quantifiable goals with a plan to hit the goal. If you don’t 

know what the target is, you are not going to hit it. If you don’t 

have a plan to get there, you will not reach it. 

This legislation requires these agencies to go through this process and to do these things. 

No. 6, hold Federal agencies accountable for achieving results. 

Accountability in Government many times is lacking. We think this 

legislation serves a very definite purpose. The objective is to serve 

more young people more efficiently than we currently do, and we 

think this will do this. 

4

I might mention that the administration certainly has done some 

good things, and they are attempting to address some of these 

problems, but Administrations come and go. We need continuity. 

Certainly, there are many things that are not currently being 

done even under this administration, which is attempting to do 

some of the things that were reported by the Task Force. 

Last, let me just say this. There are 185 organizations supporting 

this legislation. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to submit a list of 

those organizations for the record, and with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of the Honorable Tom Osborne follows:]

Statement of Hon. Tom Osborne, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Nebraska 

Mr. Chairman, 

I want to thank you for allowing me to join your Subcommittee for today’s very 

important hearing on federal youth development and coordination efforts. I have 

long advocated for a stronger emphasis at the federal level on youth development 

programming because I believe it is critically important in order to help our young 

people grow up to be healthy and strong. 

The genesis of today’s hearing is in the report of the White House Task Force on 

Disadvantaged Youth. Although the final report was issued several years ago, I believe that the Task Force report and its thoughtful analysis and recommendations 

deserve a hearing and discussion in Congress. Although the Executive Branch is 

charged with implementing youth programs, Congress creates many of these programs and funds them. We need to know that our efforts are producing the best 

results for young people in the United States. 

The White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth noted a number of facts 

about America’s young people and the programs that serve them: • The National Academy of Sciences estimates that one-quarter of adolescents in 

this country—almost 10 million teens—are at serious risk of not achieving productive adulthood. • Most young people will grow up just fine without government involvement, but 

that the most vulnerable young people may be missed by programs designed to 

help them. Worse, the programs we think will help them may, in fact, not and 

that there is a serious lack of rigorous evaluation of federal youth efforts. • A large number of youth-serving programs are targeting large numbers of youth 

subgroups. These services and target populations often overlap. • The current federal response to youth failure is convoluted and complex, and 

is a perfect example of what the GAO has called ‘‘mission fragmentation.’’ The 

GAO recommends that programs with similar goals, target populations, and 

services be coordinated, consolidated, or streamlined as appropriate, to ensure 

that goals are consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. 

The White House Task Force identified a number of goals and changes that, if 

implemented, would help to better coordinate the hundreds of programs across 12 

federal departments that serve or at least partially serve youth. The three largest 

youth-serving agencies are the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, 

and Education. 

To support these efforts, in February of this year, I, along with my colleagues Mr. 

Hoekstra, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Payne, introduced H.R. 856, the Federal Youth Coordination Act, which was crafted to help implement many of the recommendations of 

the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth. 

The Federal Youth Coordination Act creates the Federal Youth Development 

Council to evaluate, coordinate, and improve federal youth serving programs and 

hold federal agencies accountable for achieving results. 

The duties of the Council include: 

• Evaluating youth serving programs 

• Coordinating among federal agencies with programs serving youth 

• Improving federal programs that serve at-risk youth 

• Recommending ways to coordinate and improve youth serving programs in an 

annual report on federal youth development programs 

• Setting quantifiable goals and objectives for federal youth programs and developing a plan to reach these goals 

• Holding federal agencies accountable for achieving results. 

America’s young people deserve high quality, effective, and meaningful youth development programs. Our nation’s taxpayers deserve their tax dollars to be spent 

5

on high-quality, effective and meaningful youth development programs. The Federal 

Youth Coordination Act addresses the disconnect between these two objectives. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to join your Subcommittee today 

and to give this opening statement. I would like to thank all the witnesses and the 

youth development advocates who have supported this hearing. I am very much 

looking forward to hearing from our witnesses and moving forward with efforts to 

improve federal youth development activities. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership, 

Coach Osborne, on this issue. 

Unfortunately, our Ranking Member is stuck in Texas because of 

bad weather, but we have a pretty good fill in for Representative 

Hinojosa, so I will recognize Mr. Davis for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY K. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly 

hope that the weather will change so that the Ranking Member 

can in fact get here this week. He is indeed stuck deep in the heart 

of Texas. I am pleased to fill in for him. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling for this hearing 

today. I also thank each one of our witnesses for taking the time 

to come to Washington to testify. 

Many times in our national discussions and debates, we discuss 

the poor, the young, the old, the sick, the unemployed, but often 

times we forget about the middle. That is the ones who are no 

longer children but not yet adults, our nation’s adolescents. 

As one who began teaching Sunday School when I was 12 years 

old and who spent many of my early years as a middle school and 

high school counselor, and as one who has worked with many organizations and groups such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters, youth 

clubs, youth organizations, and who has simply come into contact 

with young people, my home has always been sort of a haven for 

young people, and even as I was a kid growing up with ten brothers and sisters, my parents’ home and our house was a haven for 

young people. 

In many ways, I would certainly agree that the odds are often 

stacked against this age group. 

Homicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24 overall. Yet, many people in our society really 

don’t have much wind of this. In this age group, it is the leading 

cause of death for African Americans and the second leading cause 

of death for Hispanics. 

In 2001, 5,486 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered, an average of 15 each day. 

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people 

ages 15 to 24. In 2001, 3,971 suicides were reported in this group. 

According to the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged 

Youth, in 2003, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that 

one-quarter of the adolescents in this country are at serious risk 

of not achieving productive adulthood. Nationally, three of ten 

young people who enter public high school do not graduate 4 years 

later. The graduation rate is only 50 percent for Hispanic, African 

American, and Native American youth. 

6

I want to thank my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Congressman Osborne, for introducing H.R. 856, the Federal Youth 

Coordination Act, and shedding additional light on the need for 

more discussion, more action, for the health and well being of our 

nation’s young. 

I have always been led to believe that the greatness of a society 

can be determined on how well it looks after its old, how well it 

looks after those who have difficulty caring for themselves, and 

how well it looks after and prepares its young for adulthood and 

continuing life. 

I welcome this hearing and thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, 

for calling this, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

We have two panels of witnesses today. I would like to remind 

all panelists that we have a 5-minute limit that we will go by 

today. 

I will begin by introducing the distinguished witnesses on our 

first panel, Dr. Michael O’Grady, Assistant Secretary for Planning 

and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

and is the principal advisor to the Secretary on policy development 

and health disability, aging, human services, science and data. 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary has played a coordinating 

function for many of the ongoing interdepartmental efforts addressing youth issues. 

Currently, Dr. O’Grady serves as chairman of the Interagency 

Work Group on the Community Guide for Helping America’s 

Youth. 

Prior to his appointment, Dr. O’Grady served as the senior 

health economist on the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committees of the U.S. Congress. At the Committee, his work focused 

primarily on Medicare reform, the uninsured, and other national 

health issues. 

Dr. O’Grady, thank you for being here. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL J. O’GRADY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. O’GRADY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased 

to appear before you to discuss the important issue of coordinating 

our Federal efforts to improve the lives of youth. 

The President showed his commitment to our nation’s most vulnerable children and adolescents when he established the White 

House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. He asked the Task 

Force to assess how Federal agencies might work more effectively 

to improve youth outcomes. 

I’m here today to report on the administration’s progress in implementing the Task Force’s final recommendations. I will also discuss the President’s and First Lady’s most recent youth initiative, 

Helping America’s Youth. 

There is much good news to report on behalf of young Americans. 

Almost 72 million children in this country are doing well. They are 

being well prepared to take on the responsibilities of adulthood–self 

sufficiency, marriage and family, and civic engagement. 

7

However, while many American children and youth are thriving 

in their families and communities, there are still far too many who 

are struggling and are at risk. 

In December 2002, the President established the White House 

Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. The President appointed 11 

different Federal agencies to the Task Force. He asked them to review all the existing Federal programs that served youth and then 

to make recommendations for improving agency effectiveness. 

The Task Force concluded that the best way to get the greatest 

outcome for disadvantaged youth was to focus on four goals. 

First, better management. Second, better accountability. Third, 

better parent/child connections, and fourth, giving priority to the 

neediest youth. 

We are pleased to report that much has already been done to implement the Task Force recommendations. Progress has been made 

on all four goals. 

Since today’s discussion addresses coordination, I will focus my 

comments on our efforts to improve interagency coordination. 

The report recommended that interagency coordination should be 

accomplished around topic areas or special target populations. This 

is the approach we have taken to date, and we think it is working 

well. 

The needs of young people, particularly disadvantaged youth, are 

complex. A responsive Federal youth policy often requires the resources and expertise of multiple agencies. However, depending on 

the issue at hand, this may mean a different subset of agencies. 

For example, when we are addressing the impact of television 

marketing on youth obesity, we involve the Department of Health 

and Human Services and the Federal Trade Commission, and possibly even the Federal Communications Commission. But this 

project is unlikely to have a meaningful role for an agency such as 

the Department of Justice. 

In my written testimony, I describe how we are addressing the 

specific coordination identified in the report. For example, the Task 

Force identified the need to focus on youth aging out of foster care. 

I am pleased to report that the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, Education and Justice have 

responded to this call by developing a national initiative to improve 

Federal, state and local services for these youth. 

To provide ongoing support for departmental coordination, the 

Domestic Policy Council held periodic meetings to monitor the 

progress the agencies have made. 

In addition, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention has selected 13 Task Force recommendations and made them the work of that council. 

In my testimony, I have focused on where Federal agencies have 

been working together, but they have also been each working individually to implement recommendations in other areas, such as improving the quality and comprehensiveness of our Federal research 

on youth and youth programs. 

The release of the Task Force report did not mark the end of our 

Federal efforts at coordination or the President’s concern about 

helping disadvantaged youth. 

8

1Data sources for this section include: U.S. Census Bureau; ‘‘Trends in the Well–Being of 

America’s Children and Youth, 2002’’, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education. This statistic refers to ages 0—17. 2 30 percent of black children and 27 percent of Hispanic children live below the poverty level, 

2001 data. $17,650 for a family of four in 2001, per the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Most recently, the President and Mrs. Bush launched the Helping America’s Youth initiative. This initiative seeks to highlight effective community based programs in the three most important 

parts of children’s and teens’ lives, their families, their schools and 

their communities. 

At a conference this Fall, the First Lady will unveil the Community Guide for Helping America’s Youth. The guide, or tool, as it 

is known within the different departments, is being developed collaboratively by seven different departments. 

It will provide information on youth development and community 

partnerships, as well as highlighting programs that have shown 

some promise of helping youth. It will help communities build partnerships, assess their needs and resources, and select the best programs to help their children and adolescents. 

The development of the HAY tool has been a great example of 

how the agencies can be most productive when they collaborate 

around a well specified task. 

In conclusion, I thank you for your interest in the coordination 

of youth programs. I know we share a vision of the goals we have 

for America’s youth. I hope we can continue to work together to 

make this vision a reality. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Michael J. O’Grady follows:]

Statement of Dr. Michael J. O Grady, Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, 

DC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of coordinating 

our Federal efforts to improve the lives of youth, particularly those young people 

who need our help the most. The President showed his commitment to our nation’s 

most vulnerable children and adolescents when he established the White House 

Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth and asked the Task Force to assess how Federal agencies might work more effectively to improve youth outcomes. I’m here 

today to discuss the Administration’s progress in implementing the Task Force’s 

final recommendations. I will also briefly discuss the President and the First Lady’s 

most recent youth initiative—Helping America’s Youth (HAY). HAY is aimed at 

highlighting effective youth programs and providing information to communities on 

how they can come together to implement the best strategies for addressing the 

challenges their young people are facing. 

There is much good news to report on behalf of young Americans. Most of the 72 

million children in this country are doing well.1 Within the context of their families 

and communities, they are being well-prepared to take on the responsibilities of 

adulthood—self-sufficiency, marriage and family, and civic engagement. More than 

two-thirds are living with two married parents. They feel connected to their parents 

and their schools, and these connections are helping them avoid behaviors that risk 

their current and future health and well-being. They are showing a commitment to 

their communities, with 27 percent of older teens volunteering to help in their 

neighborhoods or through service organizations. 

However, while many American children and youth are thriving in their families 

and communities, there are still too many who are struggling and are at risk of not 

making the successful transition to adulthood. About 15 percent of American children live below the poverty level; these rates are almost twice as high for minority 

children.2 Some have families who are unable to provide a nurturing home with the 

structure and support required for healthy development. More than half a million 

9

children are living in foster care due to the inability of their families to provide a 

safe environment. About 1.5 million children had parents in State and Federal prisons. In 2003, just over 900,000 children were reported to have been abused or neglected. Each year, as many as one-and-a-half million children run away from home 

or find themselves on the streets and homeless. 

Many of these difficult home and community environments contribute to adolescents engaging in risk taking behavior. Not living in a strong and nurturing family 

is probably one of the first predictors of poor outcomes. But even when families are 

functioning and capable, sometimes the problems they are attempting to address are 

simply beyond their capacity. The President believes every American has an opportunity to help children and youth in their families and communities to avoid trouble 

and lead more hopeful lives. Faith-based, community, and volunteer organizations 

across the Nation are involved in efforts to reach at-risk youth and get them involved in their communities. The President applauds their efforts while recognizing 

that the Federal government also plays an important role by pursuing policies that 

help the good works of these organizations. 

In December of 2002, the President became concerned that the Federal agencies 

could be working more efficiently, individually and collectively, to develop and implement effective programs to help disadvantaged youth. This led him to establish 

the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. 

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth 

The President appointed 11 Federal agencies to the Task Force and asked them 

to review all the existing Federal programs that touched youth, and to make recommendations as to where there could be enhanced agency accountability and effectiveness. 

Goals for Youth 

The President believes in outcomes-based policy. During their first meetings, Task 

Force members were asked to consider the outcomes they hoped to achieve for atrisk youth. It was evident to the members that while they were focusing on the 

needs of a very specific population, what we want for disadvantaged youth is what 

we want for all our children. We hope that they will grow up to be: 

• Healthy and Safe 

• Ready for Work, College and Military Service 

• Ready for Marriage, Family and Parenting 

• Ready for Civic Engagement and Service 

Because there were so many Federal programs to review, the Task Force divided 

itself into subcommittees focusing on each of these outcomes. An additional subcommittee addressed issues related to research and accountability. 

Task Force staff then conducted a survey of all the Federal agencies to identify 

any program that touched youth. Through this survey, staff identified that in fiscal 

year 2002, there were 339 Federal programs that served or addressed issues relating to disadvantaged youth in some way. A total of 150 programs serve youth ages 

0 to 21; 68 of those focus solely on school-age youth. The remaining 185 programs 

serve various ages of youth as well as adults; this can mean entire families, or 

adults who are working with youth. The programs were administered by 12 departments and agencies. Three departments, Health and Human Services, Justice, and 

Education, housed the bulk of the programs. 

October 2003 Report Recommendations 

Each subcommittee considered the programs that addressed their focal areas. Programs were reviewed to consider their alignment with the agencies’ mission, their 

target populations, and the risky behaviors they hoped to avert. While they each 

looked at a different subset of programs, the committees ultimately came to similar 

conclusions: The best way to get the greatest outcomes for disadvantaged youth 

from the significant Federal funds invested was to focus on these four goals: 

• better management, 

• better accountability, 

• better connections and 

• priority to the neediest youth. 

Progress on Recommendations 

Since the completion of the report, we are pleased to report that much has been 

done to implement its recommendations. Progress has been made in all four areas, 

but since the bill being discussed today addresses coordination, I will focus my comments on our efforts to improve interagency coordination, particularly around 

prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged youth. 

10

The report recommended that interagency coordination should be accomplished 

around topic areas or special target populations. This is the approach we have taken 

to date and that we think is working well. The needs of young people, particularly 

disadvantaged youth, are complex. Just as we acknowledge that a well functioning 

support system for youth requires input from families, schools and communities, a 

well-functioning Federal youth policy often requires the resources and expertise of 

multiple agencies. However depending on the issue at hand, this may mean a different subset of agencies. For example, when we are addressing the issue of impact 

of television marketing on childhood obesity, we would involve the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), maybe 

even the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but there may be no meaningful role for the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Let me give you a few example of how we are coordinating within the Administration to improve outcomes for specific populations of youth. 

Foster Care Youth and Workforce Preparation 

The Task Force identified as a priority the needs of youth aging out of foster care. 

I am pleased to report that the Department of Labor (DOL), in partnership with 

the HHS, the Department of Education (ED) and DOJ, has responded to this call 

by developing a national initiative to improve Federal, State and local services for 

these youth. Their joint goals are to develop new and innovative service approaches, 

to enhance the quality of services delivered, and to improve program outcomes and 

efficiencies for youth who are commonly served across agency lines. Through a series of Regional Forums, these agencies convened 52 teams of program administrators from States and insular areas to identify opportunities for aligning services and 

creating ongoing strategies for improving programs across agency lines. Each team 

included representatives from the State workforce investment, education, juvenile 

justice and foster care agencies—many of whom had never before met together. This 

opportunity for discussion and interaction generated partnerships we hope these 

agencies will build over time. 

Education and Out of School Youth 

Another key area of focus is on providing more access to alternative education for 

out-of-school youth and outcome-based alternative education that is consistent with 

No Child Left Behind. The Department of Labor is developing a partnership with 

Department of Education to work on aligning efforts around alternative education, 

adolescent literacy and numeracy, and enhanced GED programs. Among other 

things, this partnership is exploring strategies for youth workforce development programs funded through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), to support public school 

systems as they undertake the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 

legislation. 

Education of Migrant Youth 

ED, HHS, USDA, and Labor have formed an interagency team to address the education needs of migrant youth. The team has developed a proposal for a demonstration project that would allow for enrollment of migrant out-of-school youth in education programs at various locations along the migrant stream. This proposal is 

being finalized and soon the departments will publish a concept paper that details 

the demonstration in the Federal Register for public review and comment. 

Youth Offenders and Workforce Preparation 

DOL has recently announced several other reforms that aim to more effectively 

and efficiently serve out-of-school and at-risk youth through the workforce investment system by focusing on four major areas. The strategic vision underlying these 

initiatives specifically targeted to youth offenders was developed in partnership with 

ED, HHS and DOJ. Examples include: helping youth offenders improve reading and 

math skills, building partnerships between the public workforce system, business 

and industry representatives, the juvenile justice system, and education and training providers, including faith-based and community organizations. 

Trafficking 

The Administration has become very concerned about the issue of human trafficking. We are seeing a strong coordinated effort between HHS, DOJ and, now, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on juvenile trafficking in particular. While 

HHS provides humanitarian assistance to trafficking victims, DOJ prosecutes traffickers, and DHS (and the FBI) are usually the lead investigative agency uncovering 

and developing trafficking cases. The structure of the effort is such that whoever 

‘‘first’’ uncovers trafficking cases coordinates with the other agencies to ensure that 

11

the statute’s requirements related to both law enforcement and humanitarian assistance are followed. 

Coordination Around Specific Topics 

But our coordination efforts are not limited to the needs of specific youth populations. There are issues that affect the entire youth population and require the attention of multiple agencies. For example: 

The Impact of Marketing on Childhood Obesity: 

HHS is working with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to examine issues 

around marketing of food and beverages to children in light of child health concerns, 

including the rise in childhood obesity. HHS and the FTC will jointly sponsor a 

workshop to examine various perspectives on marketing, self-regulation, and childhood obesity. The workshop will bring together representatives from food and beverage companies, media and entertainment companies, medical and nutrition experts, consumer groups, advertising specialists, and other key experts for an open 

discussion on industry self-regulation concerning the marketing of food and beverages to children, as well as initiatives to educate children and parents about nutrition. 

These are just some examples of the way we are coordinating our Federal efforts 

to help youth. I have focused on where the Federal agencies have been working together, but they have also each been working individually to implement activities 

responding to all four of the areas in which the Task Force issued recommendations. 

In particular, there have been great efforts to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of our Federal research on youth and youth programs. The President is 

committed to our better understanding and supporting what works for youth and 

not supporting programs that have been shown to be ineffective. 

Monitoring the Federal Youth Efforts 

The Domestic Policy Council has periodically held meetings to monitor the 

progress the agencies have made on the Report recommendation. In addition, the 

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has selected 

thirteen of the Task Force recommendations and made them the work of the Council. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 established 

the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) 

as an independent body within the Executive branch of the Federal Government. 

The Council’s primary function is to provide interdepartmental coordination of Federal juvenile delinquency prevention programs, Federal programs and activities that 

detain or care for unaccompanied juveniles, and Federal programs relating to missing and exploited children. 

Helping America’s Youth 

The release of the Task Force report did not mark the end of our Federal efforts 

at coordination or the President’s concern about helping disadvantaged youth. Most 

recently, the President and Mrs. Bush launched the Helping America’s Youth Initiative. This initiative seeks to highlight effective community based programs in the 

three most important parts of children’s and teens’ lives: their families, schools and 

communities. 

The First Lady has been touring the country visiting community, school and faithbased programs and will culminate her tour with a conference in the Fall, in which 

researchers, program and community leaders will highlight what works to help improve youth outcomes. At this conference she will unveil the Community Guide to 

Helping America’s Youth. The guide (or the tool, as we have come to call it) is being 

developed collaboratively by seven Departments. It will provide information on 

youth development and community partnerships, as well as highlighting programs 

that have shown research-based evidence that are helping youth. It will help communities build partnerships, assess their needs and resources and select the best 

programs to help their children and adolescents. The development of the HAY tool 

has been a great example of how the agencies can be most productive when they 

collaborate around a well-specified objective. 

Conclusion 

I thank you for your interest in the coordination of youth programs. I know we 

share a vision of the goals we have for American youth. I hope we can continue to 

work together to make this vision a reality. 

12

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Dr. O’Grady, for coming today on 

short notice. Appreciate your testimony and your efforts in this 

area. 

I am going to yield my 5 minutes to the sponsor of the bill, Congressman Osborne. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. 

O’Grady, for your testimony. 

A couple of questions. Do the departments have the authority 

they need under statute to do as much coordinating as needed? 

We realize there are some cases where actually statute prohibits 

one agency from interfacing effectively with another agency. 

Do you feel there are no barriers here, or do you see some barriers that need to be removed? 

Dr. O’GRADY. When you mentioned that in your opening statement, I was a little surprised at that, and I would like to follow 

up with you, if you can identify where those are. 

The various ones I’ve been involved with, I haven’t seen that. I 

am not saying it is not there. I would like to identify where it is 

and see if we can’t fix it. 

At this point, what we are finding is that the ability to coordinate is working well and it is working better than it has in the 

past. These different agencies share a common goal in fixing 

things. We have not had some of our own internal concerns, like 

turf, competition, or anything like that, or you pay for it, not me. 

We are seeing that kind of coordination and it seems to be working 

well. 

For the most part, this is—my background is in research. This 

is a situation where people find other people are working on the 

same sort of topics that they are. For the most part, it is a very 

positive experience to sit down with other people wrestling with the 

exact same problems and seeing if you can’t combine resources and 

thoughts and come up with something better. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. Assuming that things are going very 

well, what about assurances of the Federal Government to continue 

this level of intensity and coordination efforts at the end of the current President’s term in office? 

Is there anything that we have ongoing now that ensures that 

there will be continued cooperation? 

Dr. O’GRADY. Certainly we have the leadership of the Domestic 

Policy Council. Whether they are transferring into another Administration is certainly anybody’s guess. There is no doubt about that. 

What we have done is by breaking down some of the previous 

barriers, and some of them weren’t even barriers, they were just 

the team at this department did not know the people on the team 

at the other department, once you built up that sort of a working 

relationship across these lines, that is a working relationship that 

we know certainly our senior civil servants and our civil servants 

will continue on from one Administration to the next. 

If you plant that seed and you get that sort of working relationship and you establish it well and you have some success under 

your belt, the likelihood of that continuing certainly is excellent. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I can see that point, that certainly once you get 

some communication going, it may continue. We have no certainty 

13

that it will. That is why we are somewhat concerned about at least 

some statutory obligation to do so. 

Let me give you a personal example. We had an amendment in 

No Child Left Behind to establish mentoring programs. We specified that one of the reasons we were doing this was to No. 1, increase the number of young people in mentoring relationships, but 

also to examine the different types of mentoring programs, what 

works, what doesn’t work, what is going on in this part of the country that is not happening somewhere else. 

And now about 3 years later, we have asked where is the assessment. How do we know that this is working. 

We got sort of a review of the literature. We have been told now 

that they are going to hire a consulting firm to get this information. 

This is the original intent of the amendment. What I am getting 

at is that we feel very strongly that despite your efforts, and I am 

sure they are very good, and I am sure progress has been made, 

we would like to see a little bit more follow through in these types 

of areas where we are holding people to a greater degree of accountability. 

I don’t know if you have a comment on that or not. 

Dr. O’GRADY. On that one in particular, I don’t know. Back to 

your earlier comment, we do know that the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council is in statute and will continue on from one Administration to the next. 

The other thing in terms of thinking about how you sort of build 

a legacy and how you continue to develop these working relationships, some of the things that have gone on, what I would call the 

management in the executive branch, has facilitated this. It’s much 

easier than it was years ago. 

The ability for agencies to pool and partner with each other, to 

share funding, to put it together to be able to build that critical 

mass as an investment and the need to move forward is much easier. 

On the idea of coming in with assessments in terms of coming 

up with—I had the shop at Planning and Evaluation at HHS. The 

world is full of good intentions. What we really need is to be careful 

with the taxpayers’ dollars and to know what works and what 

doesn’t. What is best practice. 

I agree with you totally on that. I would say also from everything 

we have seen from the Office of Management and Budget over the 

last few years, they want to know about return on investment. 

They want just those sort of measures you were talking about. 

As this program works, what are the parts that are working well, 

what are the parts that need fixed, you need to take another look 

at because they just don’t seem to be producing results. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Dr. O’Grady. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. I see that my time limit has expired. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Congressman Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have always had a great deal of respect for planning and evaluation in the Human Services and the provision of programs. I 

thank you very much again, Dr. O’Grady, for being here. 

14

I agree that the problems are of great magnitude across the 

country. Of course, I come from an inner city area of one of the 

largest cities in the country. I come from Chicago, where the problems are enormous, just in terms of the sheer numbers, the magnitude, the difficulty of living in a big urban environment, all of the 

competing forces and competing activities. 

I am very interested in youth offenders in the work place. As a 

matter of fact, just this past Saturday, we had one meeting where 

we had more than 3,000 offenders come, some young, some older, 

trying to fit them with cleaning up their records so they could have 

access to employment opportunities. 

Could you tell us when your report is going to be available, and 

could you go a bit more into detail than what we have been able 

to gleam from your testimony? 

Dr. O’GRADY. I think there are a number of different things, if 

you don’t mind, that I could talk about. Youth offenders in the 

work place and that notion, that certainly is an area that we are 

looking at, that we are doing the research on now to try and figure 

out exactly what can be the most help. 

We already have Welfare to Work. Folks coming out of prison, 

coming out of incarceration, what about their families while they 

are in. What about getting them back in the labor force. 

At this point, there are a number of different pieces that we have 

sponsored at the University of Michigan that are looking at some 

of these issues. I think it is sort of the next frontier after Welfare 

to Work, how to re-integrate folks back into the community after 

that sort of a problem. 

In terms of some of the other things we talked about, one of the 

things that we are trying to do more and more, what we are talking specifically about today is across Federal agencies, but one of 

the things we have had a lot of success with is the idea of as we 

start thinking about how the Feds coordinate with the state, coordinate with local, county and municipal government, and how 

you can do that in a more intelligent way, along the lines of what 

was talked about before, where you can identify best practice. 

That is a number of things where we found with the strategic investment of Federal taxpayers’ dollars, you can bring those people 

together, you can show them what is going on, you can do presentations, and we have a number of things having to do with homelessness and other problems, and we have had very good success 

bringing those different teams from different states and different 

municipalities together. 

One of the real strengths we have with our country—because 

some of the other work I do, I do some of the international work 

at the OECD in Paris, and one of the things is we really have an 

advantage here. 

If you have a system where the Government runs the entire 

health care system or the entire welfare system, my counterparts 

in Cleveland or France, they have a heck of a time figuring out 

what are their alternatives, what works. I think that is a real advantage of not only this coordination among the Feds, but also 

going to the state and the locals, so you have that sort of natural 

laboratory. 

15

We tried this in Indianapolis, this worked, this didn’t. We tried 

this in Cleveland, this worked, this didn’t. You can sort of learn 

from other people, and also learn what not to do. 

In terms of making those sorts of efforts and figuring out how 

to do this smarter, I think there are a number of different points. 

Certainly, how you bring folks back into the community is one of 

the most important ones I can think of. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me also suggest—I agree we can get a great deal 

out of coordination, because you can connect things and see who is 

doing what and really know what is happening. 

Of course, many of the people that I interact with in child welfare and human services complain that they just don’t have any resources to work with, or they don’t have adequate resources. 

I know this legislation does not talk about authorization of 

money, but is the administration talking about how to get resources into the activity so that the ideas can in fact be better implemented? 

Dr. O’GRADY. Yes. I think in terms of when you think about the 

Federal Government, the role they play—it is true, people appear 

from all the data we look at that they are eligible for different programs, and some of that is out reach. You see people who every indication says they are eligible for Medicaid. How do you get them 

in. 

Some of that when you think about our mainstream program, 

our big one, Medicare, and some of the other big programs we 

have, where you know you can provide a lot of resources to folks, 

for instance, the children’s health insurance program, those sorts 

of things. You know you can do better. 

The other things that the Federal Government does and it is always welcome but they always wish there was more, is the idea of 

the Feds moving in—it’s almost venture capital. Give a grant to a 

community, see if it will work, but it almost always mean there is 

a 5-year phaseout or something like that. 

The Federal Government is more than happy to come in and 

kind of take the risk, but then when the program is up and running, normally that money is phasing out and then it is either at 

state or local. 

At that point, that is the time, I think, to come back to Congress 

and say this seemed to work, this didn’t, this state is really happy 

with the way this is going. 

The traditional Federal role, other than our big programs, tends 

more to be sort of we are willing to finance the experiment, but if 

it’s ready to go to scale, then we are certainly looking to start other 

partners. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Congresswoman McMorris. 

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also, Dr. O’Grady, want to just applaud the goals that you laid 

out as far as the management, accountability, and strengthening 

the family and then targeting the at risk. 

I guess I think one of the biggest challenges with all of these programs is actually getting the money on the ground to where services are delivered. 

16

I wanted to start out by just asking you if you could give me a 

sense from what you know as to how much money actually stays 

within the administration, within the management level, as compared to the money that actually gets on the ground and put into 

services. 

Dr. O’GRADY. I don’t have a specific figure and I don’t want to 

shoot from the hip, so if you don’t mind, I’ll have my staff get back 

to you with a more detailed answer to that. 

I would say there are sort of two parts on that. Some of the stuff 

we see in programs like Medicare, there is certainly an argument 

that is being made that if you are going to do something like a prescription drug benefit, you better have an administrative infrastructure there that is fairly developed to make sure seniors know 

what their options are and things like that. 

I think we are always trying to keep the size of bureaucracy 

down, the size of Government down. At the same time, we don’t 

want to short shrift the responsibilities. 

Ms. MCMORRIS. One of our continual challenges is dealing with 

coordination between the agencies. You spoke about the disadvantaged youth programs and how they are within Health and Human 

Services. They are within Justice, within Education. 

Can you give me a sense as to what mechanisms are really in 

place to ensure coordination, or if you think it is necessary that we 

set up some kind of new mechanism to evaluate? 

Dr. O’GRADY. I think right now, the working relationship that we 

are having, which is coordinated through the Domestic Policy 

Council, coordinated through the White House, is the one that we 

are finding is working for us. 

When you bring together these different people from the different 

agencies, not only is it working fairly collaboratively, but you can 

see the improved product. 

Later this week, we are doing a joint session with the Federal 

Trade Commission having to do with youth obesity and advertising 

to youth, and kind of what those interactions are. 

That has worked very well from our side. The Federal Trade 

Commission, they know tons about advertising. They know tons 

about the airways and truth in advertising, those sorts of questions. 

Health and childhood obesity was not their strong point. We 

brought that to the table. They brought their expertise to the table. 

The combined effect was certainly very effective. 

At the same time, I guess I would put on the table the idea that 

you want to remain as flexible as you can. In my testimony, I talk 

a little bit about you want the right players at the table, but it’s 

not always necessary to have every player at the table, and it can 

be sometimes counter productive. 

In a case like this, that is where no, we didn’t coordinate tons 

with our colleagues at Justice or we touched base with some people, but there are other people. You want the people who are really 

going to contribute and really have the expertise at the table. 

Ms. MCMORRIS. Kind of in that same vein, how do you go about 

actually coordinating with the state and local at that level to ensure that money is targeted in such a way that is really going to 

have the most impact in a local community? 

17

Dr. O’GRADY. The way that we tend to do that, and I would say 

outside the big entitlement programs and some of the other things 

going on, is we do have the ability to fairly effectively and fairly 

flexibly co-fund different projects like this. 

In the old days, it certainly wasn’t true, but our ability to say 

that we want to put something together, like I say, we are putting 

on this effort with the FTC, the idea of HHS can move their money 

over to the FTC, FTC can move their money over, so you have one 

source that is handling this. 

It is an ability to coordinate not only with the staff and have 

them talking and make sure that works right, but also to do just 

what you are talking about, can you pool your resources so there 

is a coordinated one effort that is sort of moving out and making 

sure this thing happens. 

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Congressman Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me back up, if I may, from the questions on coordination and 

those kinds of things to a more general question. 

What can the Federal Government do to replace parents? How 

effective is this? What can we really do? 

Here is what I am wondering about. I was with a group of folks 

on Saturday night who identified that many of the problems with 

troubled youth is they lack a parent. 

Sitting there in that group, I didn’t want to have a response of 

let them eat cake, let them go find better parents. 

The question is how do you make better parents. An example 

was brought up of a 35 year old grandmother who has no parenting 

skills and who passed onto her child no parenting skills, and who 

is now passing onto her child no parenting skills. 

Here we are, trying to figure out, I guess, as a government, how 

to fix that 35 year old grandmother’s problem, and her daughter 

and her daughter’s child. 

Backing up a little bit, just tell me, what can we do? 

Dr. O’GRADY. To your first question, are we ever going to replace 

parents, certainly not. That’s not the role of Government. 

It is the role of Government to be able to do what it can. Is it 

a proper policy goal to be as supportive of parents as possible? 

Sure. That is the kind of stuff we can do. That is the sort of thing 

we can do to try and help keep families together. 

There are different programs. You laid out a very thorny problem 

of what you can do. I am trying to think of the name of the program, and I am blank. 

There are programs that do things like when that person comes 

in, this is a pregnant woman, it is clear this is an average situation, the baby is going to be born. You can send that visiting nurse 

in and you can show how to childproof the house. You can never 

twist anybody’s arm. If they throw you out, they throw you out. 

The Government can support parenting, not try to replace it, but 

they can support. That program goes in before the baby is born, it 

sort of shows how to get ready. It shows all these different things, 

feeding. 

It is not the Feds or the states or whatever doing it for them, 

but it is simply providing them—along the lines of the kind of menVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:08 Nov 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\22399 NNIXON
18

toring that Congressman Osborne was talking about. If there are 

no skills in the traditional way, we learn from our parents, we 

learn from our teachers, are there things you can do. 

I think it is along those models. We know certainly traditionally 

the major influences on most of us in our lives are our parents. We 

know there are those special teachers, that Scout leader, that 

coach, other people. 

You can try to build that sort of support network. 

The point about coming out of prison, that is a very tenuous situation. If you can keep that family together, if you can get somebody 

back in the labor force, get them back on track. 

Mr. INGLIS. A good example you just used about childproofing the 

home. We, the Government, send somebody in to help childproof 

the home. We have the home childproofed. Now, we have to talk 

about how to teach reading, and then we need to talk about eating 

properly. Then we need to talk about—in other words, through this 

35 year old grandmother’s home, we may run a whole series of people. 

If all the programs are working optimally, I suppose we would 

have about ten people knocking on her door and working with her. 

You begin to wonder how do you replace this thing called a parent, her parent, the 35 year old grandmother’s parent. The parent 

is this multi-faceted person who does some things well and some 

things poorly. I’ve surely done some things poorly as a parent, a 

few things well. 

You start trying to replace them, and you literally have 10 to 12 

people knocking on the door. 

I am wondering is the model working. Is there some other way 

to have a single—I don’t know what the single mentor would be, 

but somebody to really love and care for this 35 year old grandmother, and to help that whole family, but it takes somebody very 

committed to them, and somebody that 35 year old grandmother 

can grow to trust, but the 10 to 12 people knocking on the door, 

helping childproof first and then food next. The woman is going to 

get worn out by the people coming to the door. 

Dr. O’GRADY. You are absolutely right. We try to get that down 

to kind of one shot shopping, that there is somebody that comes in. 

In this particular area—we have some things like with folks with 

disabilities, where really what they need is somebody who can help 

them with housing questions, with medical questions, food, different things. 

You have to a certain degree an expertise developing there in 

terms of whatever you want to think about, coping skills. You try 

to not have this parade of folks going through. You have somebody 

who specializes and says, you know, an extra set of rails on your 

steps, how to move them up the learning curve. 

You are never going to twist their arm. You are never going to 

say the Government will come in and replace unless you have child 

welfare. If a child is at risk, that is different. 

How do you take folks and help bring them along, and just show 

them what other people have learned works over time. 

You are absolutely right, try to keep that to a minimum. Some 

of it, you may not be able to. It may take a few different people. 

19

You do not want to be running 10 or 12 people through anybody’s 

house. 

Mr. INGLIS. My time is almost up. It seems to me that what is 

clear is you have to find support systems within communities that 

really can plug into love and care for that 35 year old grandmother 

in a consistent sustained way, and help care for that whole family. 

Certainly, the Government has a role. It is pretty clear to me 

that churches and synagogues have a tremendous additional role in 

a caring community that can somehow come along side that 35 

year old grandmother. 

It is a real challenge. I do not feel I have very satisfactory answers. I don’t know that any of us really do. That is very frustrating. 

I appreciate the comments. 

Chairman TIBERI. Dr. O’Grady, thank you for your time. One additional question by the Ranking Member. 

Mr. DAVIS. Dr. O’Grady, do programs grow out of Planning and 

Evaluation activity in terms of planning, and looking at what has 

not worked or trying to determine how to get to the end result? 

The question was sort of stimulated by my colleague’s focus on 

parenting. It seems to me that one of the great needs that exists 

in many communities for troubled youth is to have parenting activities to help their parents better learn and understand how to 

become parents. 

I had a great experience visiting with my father who just died 

last year but he was 92 years old, so he had a great run. A few 

years before that, he was living in the State of Arkansas and I 

went to visit with him. 

We went to the supermarket. A group of young women sort of 

converged around him. They were hugging him and kissing him 

and all those kinds of things. I jokingly said to him, what is happening, what’s going on? All these young ladies. 

He said, what are you talking about. Finally, he said you know, 

they are doing that because I’m a foster grandparent. I help teach 

them how to raise their children, how to understand things that 

perhaps they were not taught. 

Is that an area that maybe we can seriously develop more program activity in? Parenting classes and opportunities for young 

parents who really haven’t learned how to be parents. 

Dr. O’GRADY. There are a number of things that are being done, 

but is there always something, is there always more innovation 

and a more creative way to think about putting these things together? Of course. 

That is the sort of stuff that we do at Planning and Evaluation. 

What works. What doesn’t. What have you learned from what other 

people have tried and what are gaps that you really do want to 

move into, because there is just not, for whatever reason, nobody 

has done it yet, and it looks like there is a crying need for it. 

In terms of that sort of area, thinking about parenting, we can 

see things like—one of the most effective anti-poverty tools we have 

is an intact family. It can do more than lots of other things we 

have tried in different ways. 

20

How do you keep people—just support that. Not tell people how 

to run their lives, but certainly help them out if they need help, 

and show them what other people have learned. 

Mr. DAVIS. I want to see us put some money into it. I think we 

could not necessarily have to put a lot of money into it, because you 

are dealing with groups of people, teaching them how to do things 

themselves. I believe if they knew better, as my mother used to tell 

us, they would do better. 

I thank you for your testimony and appreciate the indulgence, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Congressman Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late, 

Mr. Secretary. 

I don’t know what has been covered or what actually has not 

been covered, but I do want to maybe make a comment and ask 

your opinion. 

One of the things just growing up, you see kids and students in 

certain school districts who have a lot more opportunities, I think, 

at a very young age, to kind of grab onto something that interests 

them. Many times, it is sports, but other times it is speech, drama, 

arts, visual arts, music, something. 

I just think it is very important for young kids to have that outlet, something that they love, that they are willing to not be good 

at at first and then master and develop some kind of self confidence. 

I just think the arts is a great opportunity for a lot of young students. I think it is a shame that those of us who have been fortunate in life have those opportunities and a lot of other students do 

not. 

Just comment for me on how important you think that is or if 

it is not important or if I am in la la land somewhere. 

Dr. O’GRADY. I’m with Health and Human Services, my traditional jurisdiction. When we think about these situations of how 

you help disadvantaged youth, how you move forward, I sort of 

take all the tools in the tool box approach to what you need. 

How do you reach somebody? How do you find their passion or 

whatever you want to think about it. I tend to think of art in there 

with sports and with other things that schools can offer, other 

things they can take, Scouting, all these different things. 

Especially if you have somebody who maybe doesn’t have the 

best home life or had some other bump in the road that they are 

facing, is there something that will just motivate them just the way 

you talked about. 

I guess I think of that within this whole sort of tool box of things 

you would like to be able to have sort of catch their interest and 

help them to be able, like you said, to focus on something, develop 

a real motivation and really develop in that area, and then feel 

good about themselves. 

Mr. RYAN. The reason I brought this up to you is I have read articles lately talking about music therapy. Is this an area worth pursuing or something you are familiar with? 

Dr. O’GRADY. I don’t know enough about music therapy to comment. 

21

Mr. RYAN. I don’t either. That is why I asked you. I appreciate 

it. 

Dr. O’GRADY. Thank you. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. O’Grady, for your 

testimony and your time today. Thank you for being here. I am 

sure the sponsor of the bill and other Members of the Committee 

are going to look forward to working with you as we continue to 

struggle with this issue and improve upon it. 

Dr. O’GRADY. Thank you very much for having me. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. I am going to ask the second panel 

to come forward. While we are doing that, I am going to introduce 

our four panelists as we are setting up. 

The reason for that is we are being told we are going to have a 

vote between 11:45 and 12. I would like to get all four panelists’ 

testimony in before our next series of votes. 

Let me introduce Richard Moore. Mr. Moore serves as Administrator of the Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Center at the Iowa Department of Human Rights in Des 

Moines, Iowa. 

He has designed and developed original policies and the service 

delivery structure for Iowa’s family centered and family preservation service programs, as well as policies to enable the de-categorization of child welfare and juvenile justice funds. 

Mr. Moore is a convener of the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development, an interagency initiative designed to better align state 

level youth policies and programs and to encourage collaboration 

among multiple state and community agencies on youth related 

issues. 

I would like to welcome Ms. Laura Shubilla. Ms. Shubilla is a cofounder of the Philadelphia Youth Network, a non-profit organization dedicated to the goal of ensuring that all of Philadelphia’s 

youth have the tools and opportunities they need to succeed in the 

workforce and the world. 

Philadelphia Youth Network reaches thousands of 14 to 21 year 

old youth each year, most of whom live in poverty and would otherwise have few opportunities to envision their own career potential 

and a pathway to achieving it. 

Ms. Shubilla served as the Philadelphia Youth Network senior 

vice president from its inception in 1999 and was appointed as 

president of the organization in July of 2002. 

I would like to introduce Ms. Marguerite Sallee. Ms. Sallee is the 

president and CEO of America’s Promise, The Alliance for Youth, 

founded after the President’s Summit for America’s Future in 1997 

with Presidents Bush, Carter and Clinton, and Ford, with Nancy 

Reagan representing President Reagan, challenging the country to 

make children and youth a national priority. 

Prior to joining the America’s Promise, she served as special assistant to U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, and was staff director for 

the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families. 

Her focus in this Congress has been on education, health care, 

social welfare, and the challenges of working families, especially 

military families. 

22

And last but not least, Dr. Laurence Steinberg, who is the distinguished university professor of psychology at Temple University, a 

nationally recognized expert on psychological development during 

adolescence. 

Dr. Steinberg’s research has focused on a range of topics in the 

study of contemporary adolescence, including parent/adolescent relationships, adolescent employment, high school reform and juvenile justice. 

He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and has 

been a faculty scholar of the William T. Grant Foundation, and is 

currently director of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur 

Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. 

Thank you all for being here. Before the witnesses begin, I would 

like to remind you that we will have an opportunity to ask you 

questions after the panel is through with their testimony, and remind you of Committee Rule 2, which imposes a 5-minute limit on 

your testimony. 

Your testimony will be submitted fully for the record. 

With that, Mr. Moore. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. MOORE, CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE PLANNING DIVISION, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF 

HUMAN RIGHTS, DES MOINES, IA 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here 

today. 

I am here representing the State of Iowa. I am also here representing the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development. 

I have worked in my state’s government for over 26 years. Since 

1988, I have been the administrator of the Division of Criminal and 

Juvenile Justice Planning. I have been appointed to this office by 

both Democratic and Republican Governors, confirmed by Iowa 

Senate, controlled by both parties, and I am just starting my fifth 

4 year term. 

I have been actively involved in the planning and monitoring of 

youth policies and programs centered in Iowa’s juvenile justice, 

child welfare, substance abuse, mental health, workforce development, economic development, volunteer services, vocational rehabilitation, public health, public safety and other state systems. 

I have had to respond to many different political environments 

and many, many Federal officials, regulations, mandates, special 

conditions and reporting requirements. 

Before I go any further, I do want to applaud your efforts to consider the Federal Youth Coordination Act. Its provisions are quite 

simply very good ideas. 

First, I want to make four points. First, there is a growing interest in states to do a better job of improving the coordination of 

child and youth policies and programs. The impetus of the White 

House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth and its concerns over 

the complexity of Federal responses to disadvantaged youth are 

gaining support from outside the Federal Government. 

Support for coordinating Government efforts for children, youth 

and families is growing in the National Conference of State LegisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:08 Nov 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\22399 NNIXON
23

lators, the National Governors Association, and a number of foundations and national organizations. 

A number of states currently have children’s cabinets and other 

states are working on other such coordinating structures, such as 

Iowa’s. 

Iowa’s Collaboration for Youth Development is a partnership of 

state and local interests. Our community partners regularly remind 

us that they know better coordination is needed at their level to 

maximize resources and that they are willing partners for efforts 

designed to build bridges between the many separate programs and 

systems that they are expected to make sense out of. 

There is interest, and I believe energies not yet fully tapped 

across states to take bigger steps toward achieving more coordinated networks of youth programs. 

One thing lacking seems to be a clear national vision that includes recognition of how fragmented Federal initiatives can hinder 

emerging and promising state and local coordination efforts. 

The Federal Youth Coordination Act, if passed, could invigorate 

current efforts and leverage additional investments to improve coordination across the board. 

My second point is collaboration on children and youth issues has 

made an important difference in Iowa. Our collaboration is designed to better align state level policies and programs and to encourage collaboration among multiple state and community agencies. 

Initiated in 1999 with funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau, FYSB, 

our state agencies have been partnering with communities and 

youth throughout the state, and we have accomplished a number 

of things. 

We have established a multi-agency state level governance structure that supports both individual agencies as well as interagency 

youth initiatives. 

We have agreed upon a common youth results framework that 

multiple state agencies are now using in their administration of 

both Federal and state programs. 

We have established a set of data indicators and providing data 

reports to local communities for their use in planning and evaluating their services across systems. 

We have consolidated the planning and application requirements 

for some of our Federal and state programs, so communities are developing one rather than two or three plans. 

We have done many other things to increase coordination, a few 

more which I have listed in my written statement, but there is 

more that we know we can do. 

My third point is that support from the Federal Government has 

been instrumental in advancing youth program coordination efforts 

in Iowa. Our collaboration work would not have been possible without the assistance of FYSB and funding from their Positive Youth 

Development State and Local Demonstration Project. 

Sometimes despite how good an idea might be, it takes leadership or recognition from the outside for others to join with you. 

Being able to highlight the Federal Government’s support of our 

24

goals and activities has clearly been an important aspect of getting 

people together to work together. 

We have also benefited from the technical support and knowledge of FYSB and its partners. They have given us exposure and 

a chance to meet with experts from across the country and to network with other states trying to do similar things as we are. 

FYSB’s modest investment in our work has led to results noticed 

by others outside of Iowa. We have received financial and other 

supports from the National Crime Prevention Council, the Mott 

Foundation, the National Governors Association, America’s Promise, the Form for Youth Investment, and others. 

Similarly, using our collaborative entity, we have been successful 

in applying for Federal grants from other than FYSB to add to our 

collaboration’s reach and impact. 

Probably the most compelling reason for me to travel from the 

Midwest to speak to you today was my belief that the Federal 

Youth Coordination Act’s provisions to assist the states in a manner similar to what FYSB has been trying to do will help Iowa sustain its efforts. 

My fourth and final point is the Federal Youth Coordination Act 

would have a major impact in Iowa, as well as the Nation as a 

whole. 

It is only in communities that true service coordination at the 

case level can really occur, but local abilities to achieve such coordination is limited by state and Federal categorical programs that 

have different sounding goals and that dictate separate eligibility 

criteria, duplicative or disparate program or case planning activities, different reporting requirements, and so on and so on. 

Community level coordination should be a natural outgrowth of 

coordination at the state and Federal levels. Similarly, state level 

efforts to assist local coordination needs Federal leadership to coordinate policies and program requirements from the different Federal agencies. 

I am supposed to sum up and be done. Thank you for your time 

and all your efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richard G. Moore follows:]

Statement of Richard G. Moore, Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Planning 

Division, Iowa Department of Human Rights, Des Moines, IA 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this important topic. 

I am here today representing the State of Iowa. I am also here to represent the 

Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development of which I am the convener and a founding member. 

I have worked in my state’s government for over twenty-six years. Since 1988, I 

have been the Administrator of the Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of 

Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. I was initially appointed and twice reappointed to my office by Governor Terry E. Branstad. In 1999, my third appointment was continued by Governor Thomas J. Vilsack who has since chosen to reappoint me for an additional two four-year terms. My appointments have been confirmed by Iowa Senates controlled by both parties. 

I have watched or helped the creation, evolution, and sometimes the ending of a 

multitude of state and federal policies and programs affecting youth. I have been 

responsible for the administration of a variety of state and federal child welfare and 

juvenile justice programs in Iowa, and I have been actively involved in the planning 

or monitoring of youth policies and programs centered in Iowa’s education, human 

services, substance abuse, mental health, workforce development, economic development, volunteer services, vocational rehabilitation, public safety and other state sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:08 Nov 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\22399 NNIXON
25

tems. I have had to respond to many different political environments and many, 

many federal officials, regulations, mandates, special conditions and reporting requirements affecting programs for youth. Before I go any further I want to applaud 

your efforts to consider the Federal Youth Coordination Act. Its provisions are, quite 

simply, very good ideas. 

In my testimony, I hope to make the following additional points: 

1. There is a growing interest in states to do a better job of improving the coordination of child and youth policies and programs. 

2. Collaboration on children and youth issues is making an important difference 

in Iowa. 

3. Support from the Federal government has been instrumental in advancing efforts in Iowa. 

4. The Federal Youth Coordination Act would have a major impact in Iowa as 

well as the nation as a whole. 

There is a growing interest in states to do a better job of improving the coordination 

of child and youth policies and programs. 

The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth found that ‘‘the complexity 

of the problems faced by disadvantaged youth is matched only by the complexity of 

the traditional Federal response to those problems. Both are confusing, complicated, 

and costly.’’ Similar situations exist at the state level, but we know that better coordination can make local responses to the problems of disadvantaged youth less 

confusing, less complicated, and more cost-effective. 

The impetus of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth has already 

gained support from outside the federal government. Support for coordinating government efforts for children, youth and families is growing in the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Governors Association, private foundations 

and organizations, and states and communities across the country. 

The National Governors Association recently released a report entitled ‘‘A Governor’s Guide to Children’s Cabinets’’. This report found that ‘‘At least 16 states 

have a Children’s Cabinet, and all indications suggest that many others are likely 

to follow.’’ A number of states are attempting to support similar coordination structures under different names, such as councils, commissions or task forces. Our Iowa 

Collaboration for Youth Development is one example. 

The National Conference of State Legislators and the National Governor’s Association are currently working together on a youth policy initiative to highlight ways 

state executive and legislative branches can work together to promote better coordinated child and youth policies. 

Foundations such as Atlantic, Robert Wood Johnson, Kellogg and Mott have 

moved in parallel fashion by investing in collaborative youth-oriented efforts. Organizations such as America’s Promise, the Forum for Youth Investment, the National 

Collaboration for Youth and others have geared up to provide technical assistance, 

networking, and visibility to many state and local collaborative efforts. 

Iowa’s Collaboration for Youth Development is a partnership of state and local interests. The community leaders and agencies with which we interact regularly remind us that they know better coordination is needed at their level to maximize resources, that they are willing to try new ways of providing state and federally funded services, that they want to improve their results and become more cost effective 

and that they are willing partners for efforts designed to build bridges between the 

many fragmented programs and systems that are in place to help youth and families succeed. 

There is interest–and energies not yet fully tapped–across states and in many private organizations as well as in most communities to take bigger steps toward 

achieving more coordinated networks of effective youth programs. One thing lacking 

is a clear national vision that includes recognition of how fragmented federal initiatives will hinder emerging and promising state and local coordination efforts. What 

does seem clear at this time is that the Federal Youth Coordination Act, if passed, 

could invigorate current efforts and leverage additional investments to deepen and 

advance collaborative efforts across the board. 

Collaboration on children and youth issues has made an important difference in 

Iowa. 

The Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development is an interagency initiative designed to better align state-level youth policies and programs and to encourage collaboration among multiple state and community agencies on youth-related issues. 

Our overarching, multi-system goals are to increase the extent to which Iowa youth 

have opportunities to be involved, to engage in behaviors that are healthy and socially competent, to achieve success in school and to be prepared for a career and 

26

a productive adulthood. Initiated in 1999 with funding from the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau, we have been 

partnering with communities and youth throughout the state and have achieved a 

variety of results. 

We have established a multi-agency state-level governance structure that supports both individual agencies’ initiatives and interagency initiatives related to 

youth development. 

We agreed upon a common youth results framework that multiple state agencies 

are now using in their planning and monitoring of otherwise separate federal and 

state youth-at-risk programs. 

We have established a set of data indicators, combined resources to conduct a 

statewide survey of youth to establish inter-disciplinary measures of youth, school, 

neighborhood and community risk and protective factors, and we have provided local 

areas with data reports designed to assist program planning, coordination and evaluation across service systems. 

We have consolidated the planning requirements for some of our state and federal 

programs so local applicants are developing one, rather than two or three plans. 

We have established ongoing and regular contacts among staff from multiple state 

agencies and other organizations to proactively identify and then carry out collaborative activities, and we have provided teams of these state agencies’ staff to work 

with communities as they plan and coordinate their use of funding from a variety 

of local, state and federal sources. 

We are supporting a youth development collaboration website and newsletter, and 

we sponsor policy forums and other activities that provide information to encourage 

collaborations across systems and to assist efforts that promote and achieve positive 

youth development. 

We also have combined resources from multiple agencies to provide across-systems youth worker and youth leadership training and to assist officials and local 

agencies actively involve youth in planning and other civic activities. 

There is much more that we know can be done to better align the many youthoriented policies and programs created or administered by the state. Some of the 

entrenched challenges still face us, and new challenges continue to surface. 

Support from the federal government has been instrumental in advancing youth program coordination efforts in Iowa. 

Our work through the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development would not have 

been possible without the help we received from the federal Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau. Iowa is one of a handful 

of states that was chosen to participate in FYSB’s Positive Youth Development State 

and Local Demonstration Project. The number of Iowa agencies and organizations 

that have agreed to work together and with FYSB continues to grow, and we are 

developing visible links with more and more communities across the state. 

Sometimes, despite how good an idea might be, it takes leadership or recognition 

from the outside to get others to join with you. Being able to highlight the federal 

government’s (FYSB’s) support of our collaboration’s goals and activities has clearly 

been an important aspect of our sustenance and progress to date. 

In addition to the funding, we also have benefited from the technical support and 

knowledge of FYSB and its partners. Their support has provided us with opportunities to share problems, ideas and plans with experts from across the country and 

has helped us exchange ideas and develop networking relationships with other 

states attempting efforts similar to ours. 

FYSB’s modest investment of its federal funding in our work has led to results 

noticed by others outside of Iowa. Our collaborative work has been fortunate to receive financial and other supports from the National Crime Prevention Council, the 

Mott Foundation, the National Governor’s Association, America’s Promise, the 

Forum for Youth Investment and others. Similarly, using our collaboration as the 

organizing entity, we have been successful in applying for federal funding other 

than FYSB’s to add to our collaboration’s reach and impact. 

Probably the most compelling reason for me to travel from the Midwest to speak 

to you today was my belief that the Federal Youth Coordination Act’s provisions to 

assist the states, in a manner similar to what FYSB has been trying to do on a limited basis, will help Iowa sustain and improve its collaboration’s progress in the 

years to come. 

The Federal Youth Coordination Act would have a major impact in Iowa as well as 

the nation as a whole. 

In Iowa, we are trying to break down barriers between programs that can lead 

to service gaps and overly complex service planning and service delivery processes. 

27

If a youth has an abusive parent, has severe emotional disorders, exhibits behavior 

problems and is failing in school, is abusing substances, and has been committing 

delinquent acts, we should not be intervening with a separate and independent response to each of his or her problems. And yet, discipline-specific responses are often 

all that are available. 

We also should not be establishing a separate collaboration at the local or state 

level to address each type of youth-at-risk problem area. And yet, that is what federal programs often require states to do, and it is often what both state and federal 

programs require communities to do. In Iowa, we pretend to make jokes about ‘‘colliding community collaborations,’’ but we do this out of frustration and guilt and not 

because we think it is funny. 

It is only in communities that true service coordination at the case level can really 

occur, but local abilities to achieve such coordination is limited by state and federal 

categorical programs that have different-sounding goals and that dictate separate 

eligibility criteria, duplicative or disparate program or case planning steps, different 

reporting requirements and so on and so on. Community-level coordination should 

be a natural outgrowth of coordination at the state and federal levels. Similarly, 

state level efforts to assist local coordination need federal leadership to coordinate 

policies and program requirements from different federal agencies. And, such federal 

coordination efforts should be undertaken in a way that maximizes parallel state 

coordination capacities. 

This is one of the main reasons I believe the Federal Youth Coordination Act 

would have a major impact in Iowa as well as the nation as a whole. Communities 

and their families and children will benefit if federal agencies start doing a better 

job of coordinating their own policies and also provide real supports to state coordination efforts and not just mandates or instructions for state-level collaborations. 

I’d like to end my comments with one example. States are now receiving mandates or guidelines from different federal agencies that are meant to assure resultsbased or evidenced-based or research-based youth programs and services. Unfortunately, what such good-sounding words mean to one federal agency may not mean 

the same thing to another. Local or state efforts that are attempting to improve 

interventions by coordinating resources from, for example, special education funds 

with mental health funds with substance abuse treatment funds with juvenile justice dollars may get stalled over a simple lack of agreement on how to define, measure or report program quality. 

This is only one type of issue that we are dealing with in Iowa and for which we 

need help from the federal level to address. This is also the kind of problem that 

I see the Federal Youth Coordination Act can help to solve if it is passed and then 

implemented with care and with an eye on the common goals of our many federal, 

state and local programs for children, youth and families. 

In closing, I would like to point out that I have been doing this work under both 

democratic and republican administrations. I see my colleagues in other states doing 

similar work under both democratic and republican governors. This is clearly not 

a partisan issue. Improving coordination is an ongoing issue that transcends party 

lines. Using our resources on children and youth in the most effective and efficient 

manner is something all of us can stand behind. It is wonderful to see both democratic and republican members of Congress working together on this legislation—

it reinforces the central collaborative message of the legislation itself. This work is 

long overdue. Please pass the Federal Youth Coordination Act. 

Thank you for your time and your efforts to help our nation’s children. 

Chairman TIBERI. That was the best I have ever seen. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Ms. Shubilla. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA SHUBILLA, PRESIDENT, 

PHILADELPHIA YOUTH NETWORK, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Ms. SHUBILLA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I want to begin by thanking you and the Members 

of the Subcommittee for your leadership on these important issues. 

I appreciate this opportunity to describe some of our work in 

Philadelphia for those coordinated multi-agency approaches that 

serve our young people, and to address how the principles of the 

Federal Youth Coordination Act can assist local effort. 

28

I will also reflect on how our work mirrors and reinforces some 

of the key principles of the report of the White House Task Force 

for Disadvantaged Youth, as well as a memo initiated by the Campaign for Youth that supports the Federal Youth Coordination Act 

and other important youth policies. 

Let me start by sharing some good news. In Philadelphia, we are 

making real progress and building bridges across programs and 

agencies in pursuit of a coordinated system of youth services. 

To a considerable extent, our successes have their roots in the 

implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. I believe that in 

many ways, we have done what the Congress expected us to do 

when WIA was passed back in 1998, by bringing together senior officials from the school district, the city’s child welfare agency, the 

family court, together with leading employers, university officials, 

and youth advocates. 

We have created our own local youth development council. We 

have developed Workforce Investment Board sponsored requests for 

proposals for comprehensive youth services that incorporate investments from Federal programs, foundations, the school district, and 

private employers. 

Rarely is an RFP released in Philadelphia that does not incorporate funding from more than one source. This has not always 

been the case. 

We have used Chafee, TANF and Workforce Investment Act support for neighborhood based youth centers that provide education, 

training and employment services for out of school youth, court involved youth, and youth aging out of the foster care system. 

We have coordinated Workforce Investment Board, city and 

school district funding to support small alternative high schools designed to address the needs of struggling students and out of school 

youth. 

We are proud of our history of collaboration. However, the fact 

remains that differing definitions, eligibilities and outcomes that 

characterize much Federal youth programming continues to 

present significant challenges for youth and their families as they 

attempt to assess needed programs and services, and for local leaders as they attempt to collaborate and leverage resources. 

Yesterday was an interesting example of this for me. In the 

morning, I received a call from a young woman nearly in tears 

from frustration, trying to go back to school, find work, and get in 

touch with other services that she needed. Her refrain throughout 

the entire conversation was I’m really, really trying, I promise. 

Then in the afternoon, my colleagues and I spent several hours 

discussing an intake system for our new youth system, that would 

be responsive to four funding sources included in the center, that 

would not require youth, like the young woman I just spoke about, 

to be overwhelmed by paperwork and eligibility criteria. 

Whether it is designing procedures or supporting the young man 

I met recently who came back from a juvenile detention facility 

with 9 months of academic work that did not translate into high 

school credit, we simply have to do a better job of making these 

systems more transparent and accessible. 

That is why I believe the Federal Youth Coordination Act represents such an important opportunity. With the help of the Youth 

29

Development Council and input from state and local practitioners, 

I believe that many of these challenges can be overcome. 

A final big picture thought on cross program coordination and 

communication. The kinds of positive pathways we are trying to 

produce for struggling students and out of school youth should be 

part of the national conversation on high school reform. 

As we re-engineer the educational system, if we ignore the youth 

who are already disengaged from it or have one foot out the door, 

which can be half of all high school young people in some communities, then we have already written off hundreds of thousands of 

the very young people our programs are attempting to serve. 

My second point is the power of work and other real world learning experiences for youth, and the support that they need at a local 

level to make sure that we can provide these opportunities for as 

many youth as need them. 

Using the Workforce Investment Board and its Youth Council as 

a platform, we have created a city-wide system for youth workforce 

development that we call WorkReady Philadelphia. Through 

WorkReady, we have built an expanding network of committed employers that hire hundreds of young people each year in unsubsidized internships. 

We have seen major corporations like Lockheed-Martin, Citizens 

Bank, Lincoln Financial Group, and Independence Blue Cross 

make major contributions of time, energy and money to support 

work experiences for disadvantaged youth. 

Our experience underscores the value of collaboration on model 

programs and projects that focus on special populations, which 

would be a key role of the Federal Youth Coordination Act Youth 

Development Council. 

Once again, there is more we could and should be doing. Therefore, the creation of the Youth Development Council could also be 

of immense help by identifying employer incentives to hire and 

mentor young people, supporting intermediaries that connect employers to youth in schools, supporting transportation and other 

support services that enable youth to participate in work and service, and expand entrepreneurial opportunities for young people. 

My final point, Mr. Chairman, is the importance of believing in 

our young people. Contrary to public perception, most of our youth 

desperately want to be productive and do in fact aspire to a better 

life. 

In Philadelphia, we know these young people, and we know that 

not only do they want to succeed, but they have the potential and 

the ability to do so. 

We appreciate your leadership on this issue, and we hope that 

if your Act is passed, that you will continue to provide leadership, 

to make sure that the kinds of things that you envision in this Act 

actually are implemented to the agencies. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Laura Shubilla follows:]

Statement of Laura Shubilla, President, Philadelphia Youth Network, 

Philadelphia, PA 

Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Select Education, my name is Laura Shubilla, President of the Philadelphia Youth Network. 

It is my privilege to appear before you this morning to discuss Philadelphia’s work 

30

to build coordinated, multi-agency approaches that serve our young people, and to 

address how the principles of the Federal Youth Coordination Act can assist local 

efforts. I will also reflect on how our work mirrors and reinforces some of the key 

principles of the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, including efforts 

to establish coordination across federal programs, as well as a memo initiated by 

the Campaign for Youth and signed by over 250 organizations supporting the Federal Youth Coordination Act and other important youth policies. Finally, I will offer 

suggestions to the Committee concerning recommendations for your consideration 

that can help us to produce better outcomes for our young people. 

While I am here today speaking on behalf of the Philadelphia Youth Network, I 

want to acknowledge the thousands of organizations and individuals across the 

country that work tirelessly to address the needs of our young people. I hope that 

in presenting our experience in Philadelphia, we honor and, at least in some small 

way, represent their efforts as well. 

Let me begin by recognizing and thanking the Subcommittee for its leadership in 

holding this hearing on such a vital issue. The Report of the White House Task 

Force for Disadvantaged Youth and the Federal Youth Coordination Act are powerful testaments to the importance of this topic. Rarely do social, economic and moral 

imperatives align so clearly, and urge our attention and action. Therefore, the Committee’s focus is both timely and extraordinarily important. I hope that this hearing 

will be the first of many that will bring much needed attention to the needs of some 

of our most vulnerable youth, and also shed light on the great potential that these 

young people have to become active and productive citizens who can help to drive 

the nation’s future growth. 

The Philadelphia Youth Network is a non-profit youth intermediary organization that oversees approximately $18M annually from government, foundation and private investments, dedicated to providing programs and services to almost 10,000 

young people each year through WorkReady Philadelphia, our City’s comprehensive 

youth workforce system. We manage Workforce Investment Act (WIA) youth funding 

under contract to the Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board and staff its Youth 

Council. We also oversee internships supported by the William Penn Foundation 

and other area philanthropies, and are privileged to serve as the managing partner 

for Philadelphia’s Youth Transition Funders Group program, supported by the 

Gates, Carnegie, Mott and William Penn Foundations, that promotes enhanced opportunities for struggling students and disconnected youth. I will focus my remarks 

on specific aspects of Philadelphia’s cross-sector collaboration, and suggest how Congressional action could strengthen our efforts. 

I would first like to emphasize the clear need for greater coordination, flexibility 

and communication within and between major youth-oriented public programs, including education, workforce development and juvenile justice. Our Philadelphia experience underscores the importance of such efforts, and clearly reinforces the topic 

of coordination being addressed today. 

Leaders in Philadelphia have worked very hard to use all available program flexibility to bring together a wide variety of system partners that invest funds from 

City government, the school district, local foundations and private employers, with 

the goal of serving all youth within one comprehensive system. I’ll give you several 

examples of how we do this: 

(1) First, the advent of WIA enabled the City to build a network of partners, including the schools, juvenile justice and foster care agencies, to focus on the 

needs of disconnected youth with the goal of identifying approaches that are 

both more efficient and more effective. In fact, the Workforce Investment 

Board (WIB) and its Youth Council issue requests for proposals that leverage 

multiple funding streams, e.g. WIA, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), school district, foundation and private sector dollars, to provide services 

critical to reengaging disconnected youth in education and employment, and preparing these young people for success in education, employment and life. This is the 

type of collaboration that the Federal Youth Coordination Act can identify and encourage. 

(2) We are working closely with the City’s school system to align and integrate 

our efforts in support of disconnected youth with broader high school reform 

activities, including joint planning of smaller, alternative high schools, and efforts to ensure that academic programs at juvenile placement facilities are 

aligned with school district standards so that youth receive credit for their 

work when returning to high school. Furthermore, because the school district 

values the rigor of programming offered through WIB and Youth Council 

funding, more than 32,000 Philadelphia youth have received academic credit 

for work completed during their summer and year-round programs funded by 

WIA and TANF. 

31

(3) WIA funding is also being utilized to support organizations who are administering schools for over-age, under-credentialed youth and former dropouts 

who are trying to return to earn a high school diploma. This funding augments school district dollars, and enables organizations to provide much needed employment and wrap-around services that are often critical to success. 

(4) Through leadership of the City’s Department of Human Services and the WIB, 

we are pooling funding from multiple sources, e.g. WIA, TANF and Chafee 

program grants, to support youth centers where we provide access to work experience, education and training for out-of-school, court-involved and foster 

care youth. 

(5) As part of our Youth Transitions Funders Group grant, Philadelphia is looking 

closely at strategies to better serve low literate learners in traditional and 

non-traditional settings. We have found that literacy is often the critical barrier for youth seeking to reconnect to education or training programs. This effort will yield lessons and best practices for working with older youth, and has 

the potential to provide important professional development models for educators. 

(6) Also with support from the William Penn Foundation and the Youth Transition Funders Group, Philadelphia is pursuing data integration strategies that 

will analyze youth information across the School District and all relevant city 

agencies to better define the scale and characteristics of the out-of-school 

youth population. One key aim of this discussion is to understand and address 

the differing definitions for dropouts and out-of-school youth that have the potential to hamper access to needed programs and services. In this regard, we 

applaud efforts by the National Governors Association to build support for 

uniform definitions of high school graduation and dropout status. 

(7) Additionally, while we are discussing coordination, I would like to mention the 

needs of Philadelphia’s 1,000 youth who each year exit juvenile placement facilities, and that action on the bipartisan Second Chance Act would strengthen 

collaboration between state and local youth-serving systems to support their 

successful reintegration into their communities. 

We are proud of our history of collaboration and are eager to share with other 

localities what we have learned about leveraging funds to reconnect youth to positive pathways. However, the fact remains that the differing definitions, eligibilities 

and outcomes that characterize much federal youth programming continue to 

present significant challenges for youth and their families as they attempt to access 

needed programs and services. We simply have to do a better job of making these 

systems more transparent and accessible. 

To this end, I believe that the Federal Youth Coordination Act represents an important opportunity to rationalize eligibility requirements, programmatic definitions 

and performance measures that too-often preclude the kinds of efficiencies that we 

all want to see in public programs. Clearly, the Act’s Youth Development Council 

would be an excellent vehicle to address this goal. 

In a broader sense, I also urge that the Subcommittee consider the issues of disconnected youth as an integral part of overall high school reform efforts. At present, 

the state- and national-level high school reform conversations are focused on increasing academic rigor, which is a laudable goal and critical for every student. But 

we must ensure that schools, districts, and states are held accountable for improving graduation rates as they work to improve academic achievement. Efforts towards this goal could be enhanced by strategies and incentives for school districts 

to engage multiple partners and funding streams to create menus of educational options designed for all youth, with particular attention to appropriate learning environments for students who are struggling, who have multiple barriers to success, 

and for those who have disconnected but wish to re-engage. 

Finally on this point, even the most effective, efficient and collaborative approach 

to youth service delivery cannot overcome chronic under-funding of programs and 

services for disconnected youth. Therefore, appreciating the profound fiscal challenges faced by the Congress and the Administration, I hope that you will find the 

means to make levels of public investment that would enable us to expand efforts 

to help more disconnected youth successfully enter our nation’s economic mainstream. 

My next point concerns Philadelphia’s successes in building cross-sector partnerships to provide work experience and service opportunities for disadvantaged youth. 

Our experience underscores the value of public agency collaboration on model programs and projects that focus on special populations, which is a key role of the 

Youth Development Council that would be authorized by the Federal Youth Coordinating Act. 

32

Research demonstrates conclusively that work experience during the high school 

years yields long-term employment and earnings benefits. In Philadelphia, we have 

seen first hand the power that work and service can have to create life-changing 

benefits for young people. Our WorkReady Philadelphia campaign has produced numerous examples of area employers, city government, foundations and community 

organizations mobilizing to host interns and provide employment support to more 

than 6,000 young people each year. A few examples include: 

(1) Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solution has hired three dozen IT 

registered apprentices, recruited from students enrolled in a half-dozen Philadelphia high schools; 

(2) St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children has an extraordinary program that has 

introduced hundreds of local high school students to a range of health-related 

occupations, and has been responsible for inspiring dozens of young people to 

pursue health careers; 

(3) Citizens Bank and Lincoln Financial Group have offered dozens of young interns opportunities for summer employment and have contributed over 

$100,000 to support aspects of WorkReady Philadelphia; and 

(4) We are working with Philadelphia’s Coca–Cola Bottling Company, Herr’s 

Snack Foods and ShopRite Stores to design a secondary merchandising enterprise that will prepare out-of-school youth and juvenile offenders for jobs and 

careers in a number of related industries. 

If the Federal Youth Coordination Act is passed, it would provide a mechanism, 

via the Youth Development Council, for sharing information on Philadelphia’s successes and lessons learned, including the WorkReady Philadelphia model for possible dissemination to other states and localities. 

While the power of work for youth is clear, research also tells us that young people in urban and rural areas too often face challenges in finding jobs and therefore 

lose out on its potential benefits. We experience this directly in Philadelphia, as we 

are forced to turn away thousands of young people each year who seek jobs but can’t 

be accommodated for want of funded slots. Therefore, the Youth Development Council could also provide invaluable assistance by: 

(1) Identifying employer incentives to hire and mentor young people; 

(2) Supporting intermediaries and other organizations that connect employers to 

youth and schools; 

(3) Supporting transportation and other support services that enable youth to 

participate in work experience, community service and service learning, and 

other forms of field-based learning that have such powerful benefits; and 

(4) Expanding entrepreneurial opportunities that have the potential both to provide work experiences for our youth and to produce valuable community services or products. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me share what I believe is perhaps the most important underlying message of our work. Contrary to public perception, most of 

these youth desperately want to be productive, and aspire to a better life. In Philadelphia, we know that these young people not only want to succeed, but that they 

have the potential and ability to do so. We know this because: 

(1) More than 15,000 young people each year seek summer and year-round programs through WorkReady Philadelphia, far more than can possibly be served 

with available resources. These young people produce remarkable projects and 

portfolios that earn them academic credit towards high school graduation, and 

result in valuable work experience and employer connections; 

(2) Young people participating in WIA-funded and other WorkReady Philadelphia 

programs design and administer a Youth Satisfaction Survey to their peers, 

in order to elicit recommendations that enable funded agencies to continue to 

make improvements in their programs; 

(3) Hundreds of out-of-school youth enroll in our neighborhood based youth centers eager to improve their employment and earnings prospects through work 

experience, education and training; and 

(4) When given the chance, literally thousands of former high school dropouts return to alternative educational opportunities because experience has taught 

them how much they need a high school credential and additional education 

to earn a living. For example, when three small alternative high schools 

opened recently, with the capacity to serve 450 students, they were deluged 

with almost five times that many applications for admission. 

These are but a few examples of young people who are seeking to learn, earn and 

grow into productive employees and self-sufficient citizens. 

Your voices can contribute immeasurably to the public discussion on these issues 

by delivering this essential message about young people. Please use every available 

opportunity: every relevant piece of legislation, every town meeting, every speech; 

33

to counter the prevailing stereotypes of our young people and to express the reality 

that they have the potential to become the active and productive citizens that we 

all want and need them to be. 

Furthermore, please continue to lend your leadership to the Act once it is passed. 

The only way that The Federal Youth Coordination Act will be effective is if leadership from each agency sends representatives who are willing to understand each 

other’s systems and navigate the various governing rules and regulations to actually 

implement the desired changes. This leadership will need to be ongoing and persistent as this kind of system integration takes patience and creativity. If our experience in Philadelphia has taught us nothing else about systems coordination, it is 

that a few determined people in each agency can make great things happen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity 

to appear before you to discuss the need to promote collaborative, multi-partner approaches for disconnected youth. Our Philadelphia experience validates and strongly 

reinforces the Federal Youth Coordination Act’s goal to strengthen coordination and 

communication across federal, state, and local government agencies and funding 

streams. I applaud your efforts, and look forward to working with you to elevate 

these issues, and to help our young people to realize their potential as involved and 

contributing citizens. 

Memo on Reconnecting Our Youth 

from A Coalition of Voices from the Field 

The undersigned organizations represent youth practitioners, policy makers, educators, advocates, community and faith-based institutions, and others who are concerned about the future for the millions of young people who have fallen outside of 

the education and labor market mainstreams with little opportunity to reconnect. 

As a coalition we elevate this situation to the President’s attention and advance a 

set of recommendations. We stand willing to work with the President, his administration, and the Congress to advance an agenda that will restore hope and promise 

to these youth. 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL 

Academy for Educational Development: Center for Youth Development and Policy 

Research 

Alliance for Children and Families 

Alliance for Excellent Education 

American Youth Policy Forum 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America 

Camp Fire USA 

Center for Law and Social Policy 

Chesapeake Center for Youth Development 

Child Welfare League of America 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth 

Connect for Kids 

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators 

Eckerd Youth Alternatives 

Education Works 

Forum for Youth Investment 

Friends of the Children 

Jobs for the Future 

Justice Policy Institute 

Kids Project 

Learning Disabilities Association of America 

National Association of Service and Conservation Corps 

National Association of Street Schools 

National Association of Students Against Violence Everywhere 

National Association of Youth Service Consultants 

National Collaboration for Youth 

National Council on Employment Policy 

National Education Association 

National Foster Care Coalition 

National Independent Living Association 

National Institute on Out of School Time 

National Mental Health Association 

34

National Network for Youth 

National Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and Prevention 

National Partnership for Careers in Law, Public Safety, Corrections and Security 

National Youth Advocate Program 

National Youth Employment Coalition 

National Youth Leadership Council 

New England Network for Child, Youth & Family Services 

New Ways to Work 

Northwest Youth Corps 

Pacific News Service/New California Media 

Puerto Rican Youth Development and Resource Center, Inc. 

Sar Levitan Center for Social Policy Studies 

School Social Work Association of America 

Search Institute 

Society for Research in Child Development 

SOS Children’s Villages–UAS 

The Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. 

The First Place Fund for Youth 

US Conference of Mayors 

Western States Youth Services Network 

Youth Build USA 

Youth Development Institute 

Youth Law Center 

Youth Service America 

STATE, TRIBE, AND LOCAL 

Alaska 

Alaska Youth Corps 

Serve Alaska Youth Corps 

Southeast Alaska Guidance Associations/Serve 

Arizona 

Children’s Action Alliance 

Coconino County Juvenile Court Services 

Run Drugs Out of Town Run, Inc. 

Youth Corps of Southern Arizona 

California 

Bridge of Faith 

California Conservation Corps 

California Youth Connection 

Conservation Corps of Long Beach 

Diogenes Youth Services, Inc. 

Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission 

Los Angeles Youth Network 

Marin Conservation Corps 

Orange County Conservation Corps and YouthBuild Program 

Reality House West, Inc. 

Riverside County Economic Development Agency 

Sacramento Local Conservation Corps 

San Jose Conservation Corps 

Southwest Youth Corps 

Tulare County Conservation Corps 

Thomas Jefferson Youth Organizers 

Workforce Development Board of Riverside County 

Youth Justice Coalition 

Colorado 

Colorado Youth Corps Association 

Larimer County Youth Conservation Corps 

Mile High Youth Corps 

Southwest Youth Corps 

Urban Peak 

Western Colorado Conservation Corps 

Connecticut 

Connecticut Association of Nonprofits 

Lighthouse After School Program 

Pride Cultural Center 

35

Southend Community Services, Inc. 

United Services, Inc. 

District of Columbia 

City Year Washington DC 

Washington Partners, LLC 

Florida 

Centro Campesino Farmworker Center Inc. 

Florida’s Children First 

Kids@Home, Inc. 

The Children’s Services Council of Broward County 

The Children’s Trust 

Westcoast School for Human Development 

Georgia 

Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic 

Communities in Schools of Colquitt County, Inc. 

Fulton Atlanta Community Action Authority, Inc. 

Southern Juvenile Defender Center 

United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta 

Hawaii 

Hale ’Opio Kaua’I 

Illinois 

Cabrini Connections 

Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. 

Emerson Park Development Corporation 

Futures Unlimited, Inc. 

Prologue Westside Youth Build 

Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network 

Youth Conservation Corps, Inc. 

Indiana 

Crisis Center, Inc 

Indiana Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group 

Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, Inc. 

The Incorporated Concord School 

Kansas 

Children and Family Services 

Louisiana 

NZBC Urban Corporation 

Maine 

Maine Children’s Alliance 

Maine Independence Corps 

Maryland 

Advocates for Children and Youth 

Community Coalition for Education Options 

Mental Health Association of Montgomery County 

Public Justice Center 

Massachusetts 

Cambridge Housing Authority 

Center for Youth Development and Education 

Youth Voice Collaborative, YWCA Boston 

YWCA of Western Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Albion Community Foundation 

Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency 

Michigan’s Children 

Michigan League for Human Services 

Sault Ste. Marie Area Public Schools 

Sault Tribe Youth Education & Activities 

36

Minnesota 

Achieve! Minneapolis 

Hearthstone of Minnesota 

McLeod Treatment Programs, Inc. 

Minnesota Conservation Corps 

Minnesota Council on Child Caring Agencies 

Workforce Development, Inc. 

Youth and Adult Programs, Orono Community Education 

Mississippi 

AIRS 

Missouri 

Accion Social Comunitaria 

Citizens for Missouri’s Children 

Operation Weed & Seed 

Youth Education and Health in Soulard 

Montana 

Discovery House 

Montana Conservation Corps 

Nebraska 

Interchurch Ministries of Nebraska 

Panhandle Community Service 

Nevada 

Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board 

New Hampshire 

Kearsarge Assets Network, Inc. 

Odyssey House Executive Offices 

Odyssey Youth Rebuild 

New Jersey 

Gloucester County Economic Development Workforce Investment Board 

New Jersey Youth Corps of Trenton 

The Work Group 

Volunteer Center of Monmouth County 

New Mexico 

Education and Workforce Consultants 

Forest Guild 

Indio Hispano Academy of Agricultural Arts & Sciences 

Pueblo of Acoma 

New York 

Advocates for Children of New York, Inc. 

Buckeye Community Hope Foundation 

Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement Corporation 

Community of Unity 

EAC, Inc. 

Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services 

Family Recovery Center 

Good Shepherd Services 

Neighborhood Family Services Coalition 

Niagara County Workforce Investment Act Youth Council 

Niagara County Youth Bureau 

Schenectady County Center for Juvenile Justice 

Lighthouse Youth Services 

West Seneca Youth Bureau 

WSOS Community Action Commission, Inc. 

Youth Communication/New York 

Youth Resource Development Corporation 

North Carolina 

Haven House 

Ohio 

Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio 

Native Village Publications 

37

Ohio Youth Advocate Program 

Oregon 

Juvenile Rights Project 

Washington 

Northwest Service Academy 

Pennsylvania 

Episcopal Community Services 

Pathways 

Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth 

Philadelphia Youth Network 

South Carolina 

Communities in Schools of Lancaster 

Sumter County YouthBuild 

Tennessee 

Jackson State Community College 

Memphis Shelby Crime Commission 

Memphis Ten Point Coalition 

Texas 

American YouthWorks 

Communities in Schools—Central Texas Inc. 

Houston Metropolitan Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health 

Montgomery County Youth Services 

St. Jude’s Ranch for Children 

Texas Network of Youth Services 

Youth Works! Goodwill Industries, Central East Texas 

Utah 

Canyon County Youth Corps 

Utah Conservation Corps 

Vermont 

Brattleboro Area Affordable Housing Corporation 

High 5 Adventure Learning Center 

Leland & Gray Union High School 

Recycle North 

Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs 

Windham Child Care Associate 

Youth Initiative Coordinator 

Virginia 

Petersburg Urban Ministries 

Prince &Princess, Inc. 

Virginia Council of Churches 

Youth Works! 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Children’s Action Alliance, WY 

Washington 

Chase Youth Commission 

Civic Works, Inc 

Clarion County Children and Youth Services 

Community Programs, Shoreline Community College 

Friends of Youth 

Neighborhood House 

Northwest Youth Services 

2 Designs, Inc. 

United Way of Kitsap County 

Workforce Development Council (WDC) of Seattle–King County 

INDIVIDUALS 

Jerry Bennet 

Ana Castaneda 

Robert Dobmeier 

Audrey Corder 

38

Sarah Edwards 

Lori Greenberg 

Annie Guyton 

Heather Ford 

Joe Higgins 

Curt McDermitt 

Molly Shephard 

Pat Stephens 

Julie Stevermer 

Chris Sturgis 

Dr. Sue Tenorio 

Coordinated by the Campaign for Youth 

As President Bush begins his second term, he has indicated a strong interest in 

reforming the nation’s secondary schools to ensure that every high school student 

graduates with proficiencies that will enable them to succeed. The undersigned organizations support the President’s vision, and ask that he also commit to reforms 

that will improve the well-being of America’s youth, in particular those who are the 

most vulnerable and disconnected. 

This memo outlines a series of recommendations, many of which can be implemented within existing statutory and budget authority, to help the nation’s most 

valuable resource our youth—develop into successful, self-sufficient adults. Nevertheless, we also recognize that many of the federal programs that support the transition of disadvantaged youth to productive adulthood are inadequately funded, 

leaving many eligible and needy youth unable to access the services, education, and 

supports requisite to successful transition. 

According to the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (April 2003), 

the National Academy of Sciences estimates that one-quarter of the adolescents in 

this country are at serious risk of not achieving productive adulthood. Nationally, 

3 out of 10 young people who enter public high school do not graduate four years 

later. The graduation rate is only 50% for Hispanic, African American, and Native 

American youth. This situation is especially devastating in poorer urban and rural 

communities. 

Far too many young people are in danger of being left behind. Many of these 

young people are already in the public’s care in the foster care and/or the juvenile 

justice systems. 

Over time, secondary school reform and innovation should transform the landscape of education delivery. Until then, each year more than a half-million youth 

will leave school without a high school diploma, the necessary skills to compete in 

the labor market, or the community supports they need to constructively engage 

with mainstream America. They will join the approximately 3.8 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who have already dropped out and are faring poorly 

in the labor market and in their communities. 

Contrary to public perception, most of these youth desperately want to be productive, and aspire to a better life. 

As a country we have the knowledge and the technology to close the skills gap 

and racial disparities that have persisted for far too long. It takes political leadership, effective policies, and smart investments in our young people to harness their 

energy and empower them with the competencies to contribute to our economic engine. 

Our country cannot afford to allow so many youth to linger outside the mainstream economy, without the skills and supports they need to succeed. Effective reform must include expanding the boundaries of the traditional education system to 

engage communities, parents, employers, and other sectors in developing effective 

pathways and supports to help students remain in school and, just as important, 

reconnect those who have dropped out but need a second chance. 

The President has made clear his commitment to leave no child behind. As he 

turns his attention to our high schools, he can send a powerful message that he has 

high expectations for every student. He can command attention from all levels of 

government and from American families, faith- and community-based organizations, 

and employers to extend their stewardship to find effective community-based solutions to this most pressing problem. 

Our coalition of organizations stands ready, willing, and able to work with the 

President to help all young people reach their full potential. We ask for the President’s consideration and support for the following recommendations. 

• Use the Presidential ‘‘bully pulpit’’ to set a national goal to Reach Out and Reconnect our youth 

39

• Establish an interagency National Youth Development Council, as recommended by the White House Task Force Report for Disadvantaged Youth • Improve youth services through better outcomes evaluation and accountability • Establish flexibility in public education funds for disadvantaged youth, to enable enrollment in the most appropriate educational environments • Use the reauthorization of key federal programs to strengthen supports for 

youth transitioning to adulthood. • Expand opportunities for youth to engage in community service and work experience • Provide incentives and technical support to increase employer participation in 

developing internships, pipelines and intermediaries 

Use the presidential ‘‘bully pulpit’’ to establish a goal to Reach Out and Reconnect 

our youth 

By setting goals for reforming the American high schools, President Bush can 

send a clear message that our nation is committed to providing opportunity and 

support for all young people who want to constructively engage in their communities, better their academic skills, and be part of a skilled workforce. The President 

can ask for the active participation of governors, municipal leaders, business leaders, community and faith-based-organizations, and citizens in making sure our high 

schools are equipped to serve struggling students and our communities stand ready 

to re-engage students who need another chance to get on track. 

Establish a National Youth Development Council 

The White House Task Force Report on Disadvantaged Youth found fragmentation among the various federal youth funding streams and in service delivery for 

disadvantaged youth. Lack of coordination among the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services and the Justice Department all of which have 

programs and policies that serve disadvantaged youth—makes it difficult for state 

and local programs to blend funding streams and organize service delivery at the 

community level. There are built-in disincentives for local coordination in the regulations and policies set by the federal departments, and the work of sorting them 

out at the state and local level is difficult. A National Youth Development Council, 

that brings together the agency Secretaries, representatives from the youth services 

field, employers, representatives from local government, and youth can serve to: • Keep attention focused on the issues of disadvantaged and disconnected youth, 

set national priorities, measure progress on key indicators, and make policy recommendations to the White House • Establish specific task forces or advisory committees, which include meaningful 

youth representation, to focus on the most pressing issues (in particular, systemic issues and policies that contribute to disparate outcomes for youth in certain subgroups) and foster cross-sector participation in advancing solutions • Facilitate ongoing federal inter-departmental collaboration and inter-agency responses to relax the federal bureaucracy and promote the flexibility needed for 

more responsive solutions • Provide interagency support for state and local government efforts to assess 

youth-related policies, programs, funding streams, indicators, and data in order 

to create and implement strategic plans for coordinated investment of federal, 

state, and local dollars to improve outcomes for youth 

The Federal Youth Coordination Act (H.R. 856 or S. 409) bipartisan legislation to 

implement this and other recommendations of the White House Task Force Report 

was introduced in the 109th Congress by Representatives Tom Osborne (R–NE), 

Pete Hoekstra (R–MI), Donald Payne (D–NJ) and Harold Ford (D–TN) in the House 

and Senators Norm Coleman (R–MN), Mike DeWine (R–OH) and Lamar Alexander 

(R–TN) in Senate. White House support for this bill would bring about greater coordination and accountability among the federal agencies serving youth. 

Improve youth services through better evaluation and accountability 

Requiring high schools, foster care and juvenile justice agencies, and other federally funded agencies serving disadvantaged youth to publicly report their demographics, service levels, expenditures and outcomes would enable local communities 

to assess the magnitude of the problem, system performance and who is—and is 

not—effectively served, and monitor improvement over time. We recommend the following: 

• Develop a uniform definition for measuring graduation and drop-out rates for 

local high schools, alternative schools, charter schools, school districts, and 

states. Establish accountability measures under the No Child Left Behind Act 

related to graduation rates and hold states and local systems accountable for 

making progress towards those benchmarks for all youth. 

40

• Require states to monitor policies and practice that result in youth being 

‘‘pushed out’’ or disproportionately tracked to inappropriate educational alternatives 

• Require HHS to implement the National Youth in Transition Data System (the 

accountability system for the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program as mandated by the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999) 

• Provide both incentives and sanctions to state and local child welfare and juvenile justice systems to ensure effective transitional services, including the requirement that at key risk points and before a youth is discharged, there are 

explicit transition plans to connect youth to key education, training, housing, 

and support services 

• Continue to support the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection 

Act of 2003, ensuring implementation of the provision requiring HHS to coordinate with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to develop a Report 

on Strategies to End Youth Homelessness 

Establish flexibility in federal public education funds for disadvantaged youth, to enable enrollment in the most appropriate education environments 

High schools must be reconfigured to inspire and retain students, support those 

who are struggling , remove the barriers to re-enrollment for youth who have 

dropped out, and create non-traditional alternatives for youth who can benefit from 

and choose to enroll in smaller, more supportive environments. Students who drop 

out can often be re-engaged and better served in alternative settings, like community-based academic and experiential learning programs with a demonstrated ability 

to achieve high school certification for these youth. Introducing accountability and 

flexibility in financing alternative education opportunities for older youth can allow 

more communities to work with their local districts to develop alternate pathways 

to labor market success for out-of-school youth. 

• Provide incentives and technical assistance to enable public education funds 

(federal, state, and local) to be directed to bona fide education programs operated by qualified community-based organizations, community colleges and other 

entities that are better suited to serve the complex education, training, and support needs of youth seeking to reattach at the secondary level 

• Strengthen the capacity of the Department of Labor (in conjunction with the 

Department of Education) to focus on community-based alternative education 

strategies with special attention to effective instructional technologies, delivery 

methods, workforce connections, and performance accountability 

• Invest in a knowledge development effort to identify the type of instructional 

technologies and interventions that work for youth with low literacy levels, and 

facilitate the expansion of such programs 

• Synchronize the performance expectations for youth served by the adult education system and the Workforce Investment Act system to remove the disincentives to blending funding in the service of youth with extremely low literacy levels 

Use the reauthorization process to strengthen systems to support youth, especially 

those at risk, in successfully transitioning to productive adulthood 

There are many key federal programs that support the transition of youth to productive adulthood. Several of these programs will be up for reauthorization in the 

next Congress. The recommendations offered below would improve these programs, 

and better enable the productive engagement of our nation’s youth and a skilled 

workforce for employers. 

Higher Education Act. Strengthen the ability of the community college system to 

serve as a bridge for out-of-school youth seeking to gain marketable skills and academic skills for success in post-secondary education. There are promising community college-based models that allow drop-outs to accrue credits towards high school 

and post secondary credentialing, sometimes concurrently. 

• Strengthen the ability of the TRIO programs to provide college preparatory assistance to disadvantaged high school students and out-of-school youth enrolled 

in alternative community-based programs 

• Open access to higher education funding for high school drop-outs who can demonstrate the ability to benefit from post-secondary education and training; expand the definition of ‘‘ability to benefit,’’ as proposed by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, to include individuals without a 

high school diploma who have successfully completed six units of college courses 

• Adopt alternative measures for determining institutional eligibility for student 

aid that do not discourage the enrollment of disadvantaged or higher-risk youth, 

rather than relying solely on student loan default rates 

41

• Increase the amount of the maximum Pell Grant and direct the Department of 

Education to maintain the current formula for calculating eligibility so that 

hundreds of thousands of low-income young people will not be denied access to 

a higher education 

Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 27 & S. 9). Reauthorize the WIA youth title to 

serve as an effective transition support system for out-of-school and extremely vulnerable youth. The WIA youth title already requires the provision of case management and follow-up for enrolled youth. Requiring an increased focus on youth who 

are out of school, homeless, or transitioning from foster care and the justice system 

can provide the necessary community infrastructure to facilitate their transition. 

Several other adjustments must be made to accommodate the complex needs of 

these youth: 

• Retain the requirement for Youth Councils under WIA and encourage and enable the participation of the education and child welfare systems, runaway and 

homeless youth grantees, and the justice system in structuring the transition 

supports for vulnerable youth. 

• Adjust the factors of the funding formula to ensure that the resources target 

communities with the greatest level of youth distress and promote increased expenditures per youth to reflect the need for more comprehensive education, 

training, and transition support 

• Implement policies that facilitate the sharing of information on individual youth 

to enable better case management and outcomes tracking across systems 

• Build on the capacity developed in communities that were part of the Youth Opportunities and the Young Offender demonstrations; use discretionary funding 

to sustain efforts in communities where successful systems innovation has occurred, which can serve as learning laboratories for the rest of the system 

• Recalibrate performance measures to take into account the increased risk factors so that they don’t serve as a disincentive to engaging the youth with greatest needs 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HR 1160 & S. 667). Reauthorization 

provides the opportunity to refocus policy related to youth in TANF households, 

young parents on TANF, and TANF’s role in positive youth development. Specific 

recommendations include: 

• Make explicit to states that expenditures of TANF funds on programs that reconnect out-of-school youth to high quality education and training alternatives 

is in keeping with national priorities 

• Encourage the connection of young parents to post-secondary vocational training and remove the disincentives inherent in the definitions of work activity 

and the start of the TANF time clock 

• For youth in TANF households who are drop-outs or at imminent risk of dropping out, require that the Individual Responsibility Plans identify specific steps 

to reconnecting them to education and training support 

Serious and Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative. The Second Chance Act of 2005 

(H.R. 1704), introduced in the 109th Congress, would reauthorize the Serious Violent and Offenders Reentry Initiative. We encourage the Administration to support 

the following provisions already included in the Second Chance Act: 

• Support the provision to reauthorize the juvenile offender reentry demonstration grant. With 100,000 youth exiting juvenile corrections facilities each year, 

it is critical to aid their successful reintegration into society through an array 

of services 

• Support the provision that requires HHS to review the role of child protective 

services after arrest and establish services to preserve families 

• Support the provisions authorizing mentoring grants to community-based organizations and the Federal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners 

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (HR. 366 & S. 250). 

In reauthorizing the Perkins Act, the Administration can urge Congress to maintain 

the federal commitment to strengthening secondary career and technical education 

opportunities. We recommend the following: 

• Make career preparation and technical education available to all secondary 

school students, including those in alternative school environments 

• Improve the integration of learning for academic excellence through the context 

of careers 

• Expand strategies, such as work-based learning, experiential learning, internships, career exploration, etc. for youth going to postsecondary education or 

training or the workforce after high school 

• Improve the rigor and quality of career and technical education by ensuring a 

link to academic standards 

42

• Align career and technical education curriculum to post-secondary entrance requirements 

Expand youth opportunities to engage in community service and work experience 

Teen employment is at its lowest rate since 1948. Economically distressed communities face serious challenges in their ability to offer young people the opportunities 

for gainful employment or civic engagement that are key to preparing them for a 

productive adulthood. The White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (October 2003) recommended a youth service initiative that would allow older youth to 

‘‘display leadership by providing opportunities for them to serve children living in 

high poverty areas of the United States.’’ Such experiences enable youth to give 

back to their communities and develop civic pride and leadership skills. They also 

provide an avenue for communities to engage youth in the community building process. We applaud the Administration’s expansion of AmeriCorps (administered by the 

Corporation for National and Community Service), and ask that the Administration 

increase its efforts to identify and support programs through AmeriCorps—such as 

Service and Conservation Corps and YouthBuild—that enroll youth who are low-income and/or out of school. In addition, much can be achieved by focusing the investment in Learn and Serve America on successful and innovative programs and promoting systemic change that leads to the infusion of service-learning throughout our 

nation’s schools, colleges, and community-and faith-based organizations. 

Provide incentives and technical support to increase employer participation in developing internships, pipelines and intermediaries 

The high-paying jobs and careers of the future will require levels of education, 

skill, and technical competence that far exceed those typical of youth coming from 

distressed communities and school systems. These youth are the least likely to be 

exposed to exciting new career opportunities in science, medicine, the arts, and 

other professions. Expanding their horizons and aspirations can only be accomplished by engaging the corporate sector to help young people explore workplaces 

and understand the demands, rewards and prerequisites for entry. The Bush administration can assist in the following ways: 

• Encourage federal contractors operating in distressed communities to engage 

with local intermediaries in providing internships and learning opportunities for 

disadvantaged youth 

• Through grants and technical assistance, expand the capacity of local intermediaries to work with business, the community and school systems to create 

pipelines and work opportunities 

• Support training and technical assistance to expand employers’ capacity to better manage diversity, serve as mentors, and constructively engage in the process of preparing youth for success in the economy of the future 

The President has the opportunity to fulfill America’s promise to the millions of 

youth who, with additional support, can make a significant contribution to our economic and social well-being. The undersigned organizations look forward to working 

with this Administration using our collective ability to Reach out and Reconnect our 

youth to a vibrant future of physical, emotional, and economic well-being. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, and thanks for your real life examples as well. Let me try this again, Ms. Sallee. 

STATEMENT OF MARGUERITE SALLEE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICA’S PROMISE—THE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. SALLEE. Chairman Tiberi, Representative Davis, Members of 

the Committee, thank you for convening today’s important hearing 

on the coordination of Federal youth programs. 

Mr. Davis, with ten brothers and sisters, maybe you could teach 

us a thing or two about coordinating activities and services. 

I represent the America’s Promise Alliance, which is a growing 

group of businesses and non-profits, from the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce to Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and lots more. 

43

We believe the promise of America should be available to every 

child, that every child should be able to realize their full potential, 

and too many today cannot. 

I think the Federal Government has an important responsibility 

and a role to play, especially for the 15 million disadvantaged 

young people in our country today. Today, our nation is spending over $223 billion in Federal money 

across 339 youth serving programs with very little accountability 

and even less coordination. 

I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that our children are too important and our money is too scarce to allow this to continue. 

I come to you as someone who has dedicated my life to advancing 

the well being of children and youth. I have worked on children’s 

issues both in government and in business for 30 years. 

In state government, I was the Commissioner of the Department 

of Human Services in Tennessee. In the Federal Government, I was 

staff director for the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families. 

I was CEO of a child care company and CEO of a company that 

served troubled youth. Today, I am president of America’s Promise. 

I mention my background just to simply let you know that I have 

seen firsthand at the local, state and Federal levels the way Government programs work, but also the way they don’t work. 

I have lived some of the frustrations and limitations of our well 

meaning array of services. 

Many good things, indeed, are happening. Along with the Federal 

Government and state governments and the good programs, we 

have community and faith based organizations, such as Boys and 

Girls Clubs, YMCA, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Camp Fire USA, and 

many others. 

There are many Federal programs for children and youth that do 

provide invaluable services, but we are not having the impact that 

we must have. 

In spite of our efforts, we know that one-third of students do not 

graduate from high school. We know that the foster care system designed to protect half a million of our most vulnerable children is 

truly broken. 

We still have too many youth in our juvenile justice centers, too 

many using drugs, too many children having children. We know 

that over half of juveniles in detention have at least one psychiatric 

disorder, and far too many young people are killing each other or 

themselves, and 11 million children live below the poverty level 

and another 16 million live in families without basic needs, even 

with one income. 

In short, our children and youth in today’s complex world face 

complex challenges. We know we must do a better job helping them 

reach their full potential, helping them realize the promise of 

America. 

How? I think we need to reverse the process. Children, these 

whole beautiful human beings should be the focus, not the myriad 

of programs. If you start with the child instead of the collection of 

programs, we might be able to figure out how best to serve them. 

Our children deserve more focused attention and with the expectation of measurable results. 

44

One thing that few of us could argue about is that young people 

and taxpayers would be better served if there were at least better 

coordination across programs. 

Representative Osborne and others have introduced legislation, 

the Federal Youth Coordination Act. This is a strong first step. 

Today, we have over 339 programs and the White House Task 

Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified those. Clearly, we have 

lots of programs doing lots of good things, but it is either a robust 

system or a complicated web with no way out. 

The reality is probably somewhere in between, and we can and 

must do better. The Federal Youth Coordination Act can help us 

get there. 

Currently, the Federal Government has no focal point for youth. 

We do not have a single entity responsible for setting policy and 

measurable goals for our precious youth, ensuring communication 

and coordination across agencies and holding agencies accountable 

for achieving results. 

H.R. 856 would change this, and would institutionalize this important focus. 

This administration is good with the robust domestic policy 

groups, but these efforts must be ensured of continuity. We can’t 

count on a single Administration each time to figure this out. 

Government programs should add value, reduce costs, and improve outcomes. For children, we don’t know if this is happening. 

It might come as a surprise that as a country, we actually lack a 

road map for helping young people reach their goals. We have no 

way of expecting coordination among agencies. 

The Federal Youth Development Council would develop this road 

map and for the first time, coordinate and institutionalize that coordination and focus on children. 

Coordination will not fix all of our problems, but it is certainly 

a good place to start, and it will build strategic bridges. 

We need to identify duplication, improve efficiency, streamline 

red tape, and best of all, focus on the kids. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for co-sponsoring the Federal Youth 

Coordination Act. There are over 175 organizations throughout the 

country that believe this has a tremendous impact and great potential in the lives of children. 

Thank you again, Congressman Osborne, for your leadership on 

behalf of the nation’s children and youth, and specifically for writing and introducing this important bill. 

As I close, I would like to recognize several organizations that 

have long sought a more strategic Federal youth policy, and they 

work daily and tirelessly to enrich the lives of young people, including the National Collaboration for Youth, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, 

Camp Fire USA, Communities in Schools, Child Welfare League of 

America, the Forum for Youth Investment, Girl Scouts of America, 

Volunteers of America, YMCA. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we need your 

leadership. The children need your leadership. Please do everything you can to enact the Federal Youth Coordination Act. You 

have the ability and the responsibility to act, to be a leader in the 

House and an example to the Senate. 

45

1 According to national research, 55 percent of youth aging out of foster care will leave the 

system without a high school diploma, 44 percent of them will have trouble obtaining health 

care, more than half of the young women will have given birth, and a quarter will be homeless. 

See Annie E. Casey Foundation (2004). Kids Count Data Book 2004. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. 

Casey Foundation, 7–8. Available on-line at http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/databook/essay.htm. 2 Ibid., 50. 

3President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). Achieving the Promise: 

Transforming Mental Health Care in America. President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental 

Health. Washington, DC, 32. Available on-line at www.mentalhealthcommission.gov. 

Our children are too important and our money is too scarce not 

to pass this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marguerite Sallee follows:]

Statement of Marguerite W. Sallee, President and CEO, America’s 

Promise—The Alliance for Youth, Washington, DC 

Chairman Tiberi, Representative Hinojosa, members of the Committee, thank you 

for convening today’s hearing on the coordination of federal youth programs. I am 

honored to speak with you today on behalf of a growing alliance of businesses and 

nonprofit organizations, many of which are here today, on this important issue. 

I come to you as someone who has dedicated my life to advancing the well-being 

of children and youth, and has worked in and out of government and the corporate 

sector for thirty years. At the state level, I had the honor of serving as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services after leading then–Governor 

Lamar Alexander’s statewide ‘‘Healthy Children Initiative.’’ At the federal level, I 

had the pleasure of serving as Staff Director for the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families. I am currently proud to serve as President and CEO of America’s Promise—The Alliance for Youth, founded by General Colin Powell to strengthen the voice for young people throughout the country. 

I make reference to my background because I want you to know the different 

ways in which I have experienced government, and specifically how government 

serves our children. There are many federal programs for children and youth that 

provide invaluable services for our kids. Over 1.2 million children have a safe place 

to go after school while their parents are working because of federal support for 21st 

Century Community Learning Centers. In 2004, nearly one million children in poverty received comprehensive services preparing them for school and life through 

Head Start. And President Bush plans to provide 100,000 children of incarcerated 

parents with the love of a caring adult mentor through the Mentoring Children of 

Prisoners program, and we are well on our way towards achieving the president’s 

goal. 

But despite all of the efforts of the federal government, combined with the efforts 

of state governments, community and faith based organizations such as Boys and 

Girls Clubs, YMCAs, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Camp Fire USA and countless others, we know that about one-third of students do not graduate from high school; we 

know that there are more than 132,000 youth ages 15–19 in foster care who are 

going to ‘‘age-out’’ of the system, many of whom will lack a diploma, health care, 

or even a place to live.1 And we know that there are over 104,000 juveniles who 

are detained, incarcerated or placed in residential facilities, 2 and President Bush’s 

New Freedom Commission on Mental health reports that well over half juveniles 

in detention of at least one psychiatric disorder.3 In short, we know that children 

and youth still face multifaceted challenges, and we know we can do a better job 

of helping them to reach their full potential. 

But how? In these halls of Congress, we debate the mechanics of various federal 

programs for youth, and rightfully so. Our children and youth deserve more attention. But one thing that few people can argue with, is that young people and taxpayers—would be better served if there were better coordination among federal 

youth programs. Representative Osborne has introduced legislation, the Federal 

Youth Coordination Act, that offers a strong first step toward a more efficient and 

effective response to the challenges facing disadvantaged youth. 

As you know, H.R. 856 was written to implement the recommendations of the 

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened by President Bush to 

develop a more comprehensive federal youth policy. The Task Force identified fedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:08 Nov 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\22399 NNIXON
46

4White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (2003). The White House Task Force for 

Disadvantaged Youth Final Report. Washington, DC: White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, 30. Available on-line at http://www.ncfy.com/whreport.htm. 5White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (2003). Preliminary Report on Findings 

for the Federal Response to Disadvantaged Youth. Washington, DC: White House Task Force 

for Disadvantaged Youth, 25. Available on-line at http://www.ncfy.com/whreport.htm. 6 Ibid., 23. 

7 Ibid., 25. 

eral youth programs spread across 12 Departments.4 It found 145 federal youth programs offering 11 or more services, 5 and 112 programs serving 16 or more target 

populations.6 Clearly, we have numerous federal youth programs serving a multitude of youth populations with a variety of activities. This is either a robust system, or a complicated web. The reality is that it is probably somewhere in between. 

We can and must do better, and the Federal Youth Coordination Act will help to 

get us there. 

Currently, the federal government lacks a focal point for youth. We do not have 

a single entity responsible for setting policy and measurable goals for youth, ensuring communication and coordination across agencies, and holding agencies accountable for achieving results. 

H.R. 856 would change this by establishing the Federal Youth Development Council. This council would be composed of Department Secretaries and directed by Congress to improve communication among federal agencies serving similar or the same 

populations of youth. It would also assess the needs of youth and develop a comprehensive plan including quantifiable five-year goals and common indicators of 

youth well-being and assist agencies in coordinating their efforts to achieve results. 

Through its annual report to Congress, the council would compile a comprehensive review of federal research on youth well-being, making ‘‘what we know’’ about 

youth and youth programs more transparent to Congress and the American people. 

This, in turn, would help Congress make more strategic decisions in the future. The 

report would also provide recommendations to Congress on ways to better integrate 

policies across agencies, particularly highlighting statutory barriers to effective coordination. 

And pending the availability of appropriations, the Council would provide assistance to States and localities to support State-level coordination efforts, giving priority to States that have already initiated interagency coordination focused on 

youth. 

If this bill only improved federal coordination, it would be a good thing. If this 

bill only improved state coordination, that would be a good thing too. But by doing 

both of these things together, the Federal Youth Coordination Act is uniquely valuable. It also sends an important message to States that they, in turn, should be connecting to city and county level collaborative efforts. In so doing, the federal government would provide leadership reinforcing work by the National Conference of State 

Legislators and the National Governors Association, both of which have recently 

launched efforts to support state youth collaboration. 

It might come as a surprise to you that, as a country, we lack a roadmap for helping young people reach the goals we hope they will achieve. We have no way of directing coordination among agencies that provide different services to the same populations of youth, so that individual funding streams are, in the words of the White 

House Task Force, ‘‘integrated in ways that add value, reduce cost, and improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth.’’ 7 The Federal Youth Development Council will develop this roadmap, and for the first time, coordinate agency efforts toward a common destination. 

While some may question whether or not the council called for by this bill will 

truly be able to complete the Herculean task of integrating the work of federal agencies, we have every reason to believe the Federal Youth Coordination Act is a strong 

step in the right direction. The continued leadership of this Committee is vital for 

this to take place. By holding annual hearings, perhaps centered on the annual report to be provided by the council, this Committee will provide the extra accountability necessary to ensure success. 

The bottom line is this: coordination won’t simply happen by telling agencies to 

coordinate. Federal agencies and staff, just like all of us in the youth serving arena, 

are rightfully busy implementing their own programs and strategies and have little 

time to ‘‘come up for air’’ and look at the broader picture. This notwithstanding, it 

is not okay that we allow children to age out of the foster care system without 

health care or even a place to live when government programs already provide both. 

And considering the existence of government funded mental health programs, it is 

questionable that we incarcerate juveniles with mental health problems but make 

47

little attempt to address this problem, let alone effectively integrating these youth 

back into the community. 

Coordination will not fix all of these and other problems, but especially during 

times where fiscal discipline guides decision making, improved coordination is a 

good place to start. To do this, we need Congress to empower a staffed entity whose 

full-time responsibility is building strategic bridges among federal agencies. We 

need it to identify duplication of federal efforts and areas for improved efficiency, 

and direct interagency efforts to streamline unnecessary red tape and produce better 

results for kids. 

The concept of enhancing federal coordination is not a new one. Congress has led 

much more intense efforts to address other national priorities, such as the establishment of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the newly established National Intelligence Director. Just as our country needs a coordinated effort to combat 

drugs and keep us safe from terrorism, we need a comprehensive strategy to ensure 

that those who will lead our country have the resources to be the leaders we need 

them to be. While the Federal Youth Coordination Act does not go as far as these 

two reform efforts, it is nonetheless a strong and important step toward a federal 

youth policy that is comprehensive, coordinated, and accountable. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for co-sponsoring the Federal Youth Coordination Act, as I and over 100 organizations throughout the country believe it has 

tremendous potential for improving the lives of children. I would also like to offer 

special thanks to Mr. Osborne for your leadership on behalf of the nation’s children 

and youth, and specifically for writing and introducing this important bill. I also 

wish to recognize Representatives Ford, Hoekstra, Norwood, Payne and Peterson for 

their co-sponsorship. Finally, I would like to recognize a few of the organizations 

that have long sought a more strategic federal youth policy, and serve daily to enrich the lives of young people, including the National Collaboration for Youth, Big 

Brothers Big Sisters of America, Camp Fire USA, Communities in Schools, Child 

Welfare League of America, Forum for Youth Investment, Girl Scouts of America, 

Volunteers of America and YMCA of the USA. The work of faith and community 

based organizations such as these, as well as private foundations and generous corporations which have followed the federal government’s lead by investing in collaborative efforts, leaves no doubt that the Federal Youth Coordination Act would leverage significant investments within the private sector. 

Many feel that Washington is an increasingly partisan city. But we know, and you 

demonstrate, that when it comes to the nation’s children, leaders on both sides of 

the aisle come together for what’s right for our country, and its future. I’d like to 

leave you with the words of Terri Harrak, a young woman who aged out of the foster care system. Terri said: 

I believe federal agencies are doing the best they can to provide services 

for young people, but there is no coordination. I would go to one place for 

healthcare, run to another place for unemployment, go somewhere else for 

education, run all around town and fill out all kinds of forms, when one 

person just could have told me about all the programs together. If I 

would’ve gone to get healthcare, or emergency food stamps, at 18 years old, 

I didn’t even know how to use them and had no place to put them. If someone would’ve told me about the federal transitional living program that was 

four miles away from where I was living in the hospital, I could have saved 

a year of homelessness. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, children like Terri need your leadership. Please act swiftly to enact the Federal Youth Coordination Act. We have 

made great strides in a number of areas, but there is still more to do. This Committee has the ability, and the responsibility, to act. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Dr. Steinberg? 

STATEMENT OF DR. LAURENCE STEINBERG, DISTINGUISHED 

UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR, MacARTHUR FOUNDATION RESEARCH NETWORK ON ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Dr. STEINBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. 

48

I am a developmental psychologist who specializes in child and 

adolescent development, and I have done research on a variety of 

topics, including youth development and parent/child relationships 

for more than 30 years. 

I am here to urge your support of the Federal Youth Coordination Act, and I say this in light of what behavioral scientists like 

myself as well as policymakers and practitioners concerned with 

young people have learned about the mental health and educational, vocational, and social service needs of America’s young 

people. 

The existing lack of coordination among programs for youth at 

the Federal, state and local levels is inefficient and costly, and as 

a consequence, many young people in need of services are not receiving them. 

The way in which we organize programs for young people and 

agencies that serve them reflects a view of teenagers and youth 

that partitions their lives into isolated categories, education, workforce development, now health, juvenile justice, family life, and the 

like. 

The boundaries between these domains with respect to funding 

streams and administrative structures are often entrenched in the 

way Government agencies are organized and funded, but in the 

real world, the boundaries between these different domains are 

very fuzzy and very fluid. 

As I am sure that most of you know, different problems that afflict adolescents often cluster together. Many young people with 

special education needs have tremendous family problems. Many 

young people who suffer long bouts of unemployment during the 

transition from school to work perhaps have substance abuse problems. Many young people with mental illness have spent many 

years in the foster care system, and so on. 

Yet, in many locales, individuals in the education, child welfare, 

foster care and mental health systems have little coordinated contact with one another, and nowhere is this more apparent than 

with respect to young people in the justice system, which is a group 

of adolescents that has been the focus of my work for the past decade. 

One of the studies that I co-direct is an ongoing prospective 

study of nearly 1,400 serious juvenile offenders in Arizona and 

Pennsylvania. This study is the largest and most comprehensive of 

its kind ever undertaken, and I am pleased to say this is funded 

mainly by the U.S. Department of Justice with additional support 

from the two states in which we are carrying out the research and 

several private foundations. 

Unlike most studies of juvenile offenders, ours is different in a 

very important way. We are not just interested in understanding 

their criminal behavior. We are interested in understanding their 

mental health, their psychological development, their education, 

their labor force participation, their family life, and the receipt of 

social services. 

Here is what we are learning. We know that young people who 

are in the justice system are there because they have violated the 

law, but our research shows that this population of young people 

49

can be defined by much more than their illegal or anti-social behavior. 

A disproportionate number of them have had contact with the 

foster care system at some point in time. A disproportionate number of them have been abused or neglected. A disproportionate 

number of them have serious mental health problems. A disproportionate number of them have substance abuse or substance dependency. 

In other words, these kids whom we classify as juvenile offenders 

could just as easily be classified as special education students, victims of child abuse, individuals with mental illness, individuals 

with substance abuse problems, and so on. 

Because of the artificial way in which we classify them, the kids 

in the juvenile justice system often don’t get the services that they 

need, and as a result of that, when they come out of a justice system, they are very likely to re-offend. 

One of the things that we are seeing in the early years of the 

study is one of the best predictors of re-offending among kids coming out of the justice system, having a substance abuse problem. 

We can imagine how much better our justice system would work 

if what we did in that system was coordinated with what we did 

in the treatment of drugs and alcohol abuse. 

Our work suggests that in order to be able to respond to juvenile 

crimes, we need to look at the whole adolescent, and not just at the 

young person’s anti-social behavior. 

I am confident that if you were to ask experts who specialize in 

education, workforce development, health care, mental health or 

foster care, you would receive a similar assessment. 

In closing, let me just say that I think America needs an over 

arching youth policy in order to promote positive development and 

to prevent problematic functioning during this critical period of life. 

I think the coordination of programs and services for young people is a very important step toward this goal, and the Federal 

Youth Coordination Act is a very important part of this process. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Laurence Steinberg follows:]

Statement of Dr. Laurence Steinberg, Distinguished University Professor of 

Psychology, Director, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 

I am the Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at Temple University 

in Philadelphia. I specialize in the study of psychological development during childhood and adolescence. I received my Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Cornell University and have held faculty positions at the University of California and 

the University of Wisconsin. I am a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, a former President of the Society for Research on Adolescence, and the President–Elect of the American Psychological Association’s Division of Developmental 

Psychology. In addition, I am the Director of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. For the past ten years, our Network has been studying how our juvenile justice 

policies and practices should be informed by what we know about normal and abnormal adolescent development. 

I am here today to urge your support of the Federal Youth Coordination Act. I 

say this in light of what behavioral scientists like myself, as well as policy-makers 

and practitioners concerned with the development of American youth, have learned 

about the mental health, educational, vocational, and social service needs of our 

country’s young people. The existing lack of coordination of programs for youth, at 

50

the federal, state, and local levels is inefficient and costly, and as a consequence, 

many young people in need of services are not receiving them. 

Currently, programs for youth are administered by a wide array of agencies, many 

of which do not communicate with one another. The organization of these agencies 

reflects a view of young people that partitions their lives into isolated categories—

education, workforce development, mental health, juvenile justice, family life, and 

the like. Although the boundaries between these life domains with respect to funding streams and administrative structures are often entrenched in the ways in 

which governmental agencies are organized and funded, in the real world these 

boundaries are fuzzy and fluid. As I am sure you know, different problems that 

often afflict adolescents tend to cluster together. Many young people with special 

education needs have tremendous family problems. Many young people who suffer 

long bouts of unemployment during the transition from school to work also have 

substance abuse problems. Many young people who suffer from mental illness have 

spent years within the foster care system, and so on. And yet, in many locales, individuals in the education, child welfare, foster care, and mental health systems have 

little coordinated contact with one another. 

Nowhere is this overlap more apparent than with respect to young people in the 

justice system, a category of adolescents that has been the focus of my work for the 

past decade. One of our Network’s major research activities is an ongoing prospective study of nearly 1,400 serious juvenile offenders in Arizona and Pennsylvania. 

This study, the largest and most comprehensive of its kind ever undertaken, is funded mainly by the U.S. Department of Justice, with additional support from the two 

states in which the study is being carried out as well as several private foundations. 

Unlike most studies of juvenile offenders, which focus only on understanding the 

causes of individuals’ criminal behavior, ours is examining the interconnections 

among antisocial behavior, psychological development, mental health, education, 

work, family life, substance use, and the receipt of social services. 

Young people who are in the justice system are there as a result of their violation 

of the law. But our research, as well as that conducted by other teams, shows that 

the population of juvenile offenders is defined by more than their illegal or antisocial behavior. A disproportionate number of juvenile offenders have had contact 

with the foster care system sometime during childhood. A disproportionate number 

have been abused or neglected. A disproportionate number require special education. A disproportionate number suffer from substance abuse or dependence. A 

disproportionate number have a mental illness such as depression, post-traumatic 

anxiety disorder, or bipolar illness. In other words, these young people, whom we 

classify as juvenile offenders, could just as easily be classified as special education 

students, victims of child abuse, alcoholics, or youngsters with affective disorder. 

Yet, because of artificial categorization based on funding streams and programs, we 

classify these adolescents as juvenile offenders, and not in some other, equally valid 

way, and because the juvenile justice, education, mental health and child welfare 

systems do not always coordinate their efforts, adolescents in the justice system 

often do not receive the full range of services that they need, either while they are 

in facilities or when they return to the community, during periods of aftercare. As 

a consequence, many juvenile offenders continue to commit crimes after they have 

been released from the justice system. In our ongoing study, for instance, we are 

finding that one of the best predictors of re-offending is having an alcohol or substance use disorder. To effectively help adolescents overcome challenges we need the 

programs and services available to them to be coordinated holistically, not categorically. 

Our work suggests that in order to understand how best to prevent and respond 

to juvenile crime, we need to look at the whole adolescent, and not just at that 

young person’s antisocial behavior. I am confident that if you were to ask experts 

who work in the fields of education, workforce development, health care, mental 

health, or foster care, you would receive a similar assessment. 

America needs an overarching youth policy in order to promote positive development and prevent problematic functioning during this critical period of life. Requiring agencies that serve youth to work together toward the common goals that they 

all share—helping young people have a positive and successful adolescent experience and helping to ensure that they make a healthy and successful transition to 

adulthood—is a critically important element in the development of an overarching 

youth development policy. The Federal Youth Coordination Act is an important step 

in the right direction. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. That was awesome. Thank you all 

for very, very good testimony. 

51

I am a proud sponsor of this bill and congratulate Congressman 

Osborne for bringing folks together to have this debate. 

I want to touch on an issue that my colleague from Ohio brought 

up. You all may have heard him bring it up to our previous witness, Dr. O’Grady, that being music. 

Let me put it in this context. Having grown up in a family where 

English was the second language when I was growing up, graduating from the second largest public school system in Ohio, first 

in my family to graduate from high school, eligible for the free and 

reduced lunch program when I was in high school, if it weren’t for 

music for me, I can tell you that I would certainly not be here, but 

who knows where I would be if it weren’t for that wonderful mentor/teacher and a music program that really got me interested more 

than other things I was involved in. I am still involved in music 

today. 

Taking Mr. Ryan’s lead in his question earlier to Dr. O’Grady, 

how do we from a Federal policy standpoint maybe try to help 

youth who might come from difficult backgrounds get interested in 

music, sports, or other particular programs that might help them 

through adolescence? 

Ms. SALLEE. One comment I would make is if we were really 

comprehensive in expecting every young person to have a good 

thing to do after school, after school activities including mentors, 

youth service opportunities. 

What do they do when they are not in school? We recently did 

a survey of 2,000 young people, and unfortunately, 75 percent have 

nothing to do and surf the Internet. That is a great opportunity 

begging for a solution. They need mentors. They need music. They 

need sports. They need productive activities. They need volunteer 

opportunities. 

We need to take again a coordinated approach to this thing and 

make sure that every young person has something good to do after 

school. 

Dr. STEINBERG. May I add to that, we now know from behavioral 

science research that the hours between 3 in the afternoon and 6 

in the evening are the prime time for youngsters’ experimentation 

with drugs and alcohol, precocious sexual activity, and delinquency. 

If we could occupy young people in the after school hours with 

these more productive activities that would help create a passion 

for something important in their lives, we could also prevent a lot 

of problem behavior at the same time. 

Mr. MOORE. I would echo the thought particularly on developing 

positive opportunities for all kids throughout our nation. 

Kids who are already enmeshed in the system either through 

mental health or substance abuse or delinquency, the interventions 

that we provide to them also need to be looking at that person as 

someone who is growing and still developing, and we need to make 

sure they have those kinds of opportunities as well, and that would 

be in addition to the supervision and other kinds of interventions 

that are needed in those cases, if such exist. 

It is not just the prevention side that those things need to be 

brought to bear on the kids. 

Ms. SHUBILLA. I guess I would just add music spoke to you. Community service spoke to me. I think that part of what we want to 

52

create is opportunities to engage kids with things that are interesting to them, and for young people who have become particularly 

disengaged, it is the first way to get them back in the door and give 

them some success and some confidence that then helps them tackle some other issues in their life. I think it is very important. 

Chairman TIBERI. Good point. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. 

Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank you 

all for your testimony and your insights. 

Ms. Sallee, you indicated that it did not appear to you that we 

had a focal point or a focus on youth or our young people. Are you 

suggesting a separate agency or designation of something coming 

out of the Federal Government that just simply concentrates on the 

problems, needs, hopes and aspirations of young people? 

Ms. SALLEE. Thank you. The purpose of the Federal Youth Coordination Act would actually set up a council, and that council 

would represent all these different agencies that are serving young 

people today, and the very act of having a council and asking them 

to have a plan and to have measurable goals and to hold these different programs accountable and call for an assessment of young 

people and their needs, there are some people who said will this 

create an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, but in point of fact, 

this coordination could eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and get better results and a better return for our precious investment of real 

Federal money. 

That would be, I think, the major thrust of this piece of legislation, to create this council that could become the focal point and 

have representation from the different groups and agencies. 

Mr. DAVIS. The council could really do it? I mean we have commissions and study groups and all kinds of groups. 

It seems to me that you are kind of moving toward an agency. 

I am thinking how programs come. Often times, one agency may 

very well not know what another agency is really doing. 

If you have put all of the activity in a place, then somebody 

knows you are dealing specifically with youth. That may be separate from dealing with education or dealing with health care. 

I guess there is some——

Ms. SALLEE. The representation from those different groups you 

listed would be at the table. The two good things about this Act is 

No. 1, it is over in 5 years. I like the sunset provision because it 

gives a sense of urgency. It says let’s make a plan and let’s institutionalize better coordination and better expectations. 

Second, it also has provisions for going down to the state level, 

which can then help really organize at the state and community 

level, and that is real services and real kids live. 

Mr. DAVIS. Dr. Steinberg, I really appreciate the intent and the 

focus of your study. It seems to me that what you found already, 

that we are on the right track with Representative Osborne’s legislation. 

How can your study or the information help us to become more 

effective at determining what is working and what is not working, 

and what really helps us get to the end result? 

What is it that we are hoping is going to happen as a result of 

the activity in which we are engaged? 

53

Dr. STEINBERG. Our study was designed to answer the very question that you are asking, that is what works for what kids under 

what circumstances. 

I think that in order to answer that question, we need to take 

this broad holistic view of children and understand the different 

kinds of social and emotional and behavioral needs that they have. 

Just as an aside, we have had a lot of difficulty getting other 

agencies to help support this research because it is seen as a juvenile justice study when in fact we are learning an awful lot about 

substance abuse and mental health and adolescent development 

and education and labor force participation. 

Currently, there is not an effective mechanism for bringing together different agencies to fund research that is going to inform 

the study of these issues in the kind of comprehensive way that we 

need. 

I am hoping that with provisions such as those outlined in the 

Act that Mr. Osborne has sponsored, it will not only help in the delivery of services and programs, but it will help us do a better job 

as a research community in evaluating and understanding the 

problems that kids have and what we need to do to address them. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Osborne. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

those of you on the panel for appearing here today. I would like to start with Ms. Sallee. I think you mentioned $223 

billion spent on 125 programs or 150, whatever. That is a huge 

amount of money. 

I wondered if you had available quickly the comment in your testimony where you quoted the young lady was somewhat frustrated 

by her experience in the system? I have it here. I can read it for 

you if you don’t have it accessible. 

Ms. SALLEE. Yes, please. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Anyway, what you said is I’m sure the Federal 

agencies are doing the best they can, but there is no coordination. 

You have to go to one place for health care and run to another 

place for unemployment and somewhere else for education, and all 

around town, fill out all kinds of forms, and one person just told 

me about the programs together. If I would have gone to get health 

care or emergency food stamps, at 18 years old, I don’t even know 

how to use them and had no place to put them. If someone would 

have told me about the Federal transitional living program that 

was four miles away from where I was living in the hospital, I 

could have saved a year of homelessness. 

The reason I am asking this is you folks deal with people in real 

life situations and on the ground, so to speak. 

As we listened to Dr. O’Grady, and I think his testimony was excellent, we get the impression that things are really going pretty 

well, and as we listen to you folks, I don’t have quite the same impression. 

There is a little disconnect here. I wondered—I will throw it open 

to any and all of you—where do you think the situation lies? Where 

does the rubber hit the road? 

I do not want to introduce legislation that is meaningless or duplicative and doesn’t do any good. 

54

I guess in my experience, I ran a mentoring program with 3,000 

kids, and as I deal with young people, I don’t think things are 

going all that well. I do see a lot of confusion, and most kids in foster care are dealing with at least four or five different agencies and 

it is very confusing. Unless they have a lot of help, they just simply 

can’t negotiate the system. 

Anyway, would you flesh it out a little bit and what are the 

facts? Maybe you could say a little bit more on whether this is a 

good thing or a bad thing. What do you see happening on the 

ground with kids and young people? 

Ms. SALLEE. I think all of us can reflect from our different perspectives the frustrations that we live and feel on behalf of young 

people we have tried to serve and help and their family members 

who can’t negotiate the system and the different eligibility criteria 

and the different places you have to go just to put together the 

basic resources that you are trying to have to help your child or 

the family. 

Then the workers themselves get frustrated because there are artificial barriers through these silos of funding streams that come 

down. 

On behalf of the administration, I do think there has been an effort to introduce better coordinating vehicles, but I was suggesting 

in my summary testimony, we can’t be dependent on one domestic 

policy advisor to work this through. 

What we are all asking for is that this notion of coordination on 

behalf of young people and better results for young people and a 

more holistic view of young people, that that be institutionalized 

through this council and through this Coordination Act, and then 

maybe we can have this window of time to really break through 

some of these silos and create some better coordination and get 

more efficient use of the money. 

If we had more efficient use of money, we could serve more kids. 

I think that’s what we all are about, touching more lives. 

Ms. SHUBILLA. I would just add to that, on a local level, we have 

been grappling with a similar issue. We have a lot of good people 

in place across all of our agencies right now who are eager and 

willing to work together. 

How does that outlast the current leadership, the current political appointments that are in place to make sure this is institutionalized, so that every time there is new leadership, we are not 

starting all over again with our coordination efforts. 

I think at the end of the day, that is what is going to make the 

difference in terms of returns on investment and being able to cut 

administrative costs, since this is a long term institutionalized system and not just a short lived system. 

Mr. MOORE. From a state perspective, I will remind you that I 

do believe that the real coordination has to happen at the case 

level, locally, but at the state level, a number of the efforts that are 

going on in the administration are working in the right direction. 

They are doing things that make sense and that are smart. 

The devil is in the details. By the time it gets down to the local 

community, sometimes it almost feels like a theoretical construct, 

what has happened at the Federal level. 

55

An example would be there are some programs where there have 

been some joint Federal agencies working together to develop a 

program for after care, re-entry of offenders, for example. Wonderful ideas. Wonderful things. They are doing well. 

The states are having to apply to a number of different agencies 

and fill out a number of different reports and deal with different 

Federal liaison, even though there are Federal agencies working together on a common project, there are still things that could be 

done to improve the coordination and the seamlessness of working 

together. 

At the state level, we have the same problem, trying to do that 

for our local communities. 

There is still work to be done. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. Ms. Sallee, I think you mentioned better 

coordination, the more efficient this is, the more money we could 

actually get down maybe to the case level and get actually help to 

these kids. 

In your estimation and maybe in Mr. Moore’s as well, what kind 

of savings do you think we could extract from this $223 billion? 

That is a lot of money for any of us to even try to comprehend. Percentages, numbers. 

Do you have any idea what money we would be able to save by 

coordinating this and actually pushing the money down to the 

kids? 

Ms. SALLEE. I couldn’t say because I think what you have to do 

is get everybody at the same table to say what can we do to serve 

these kids as holistic human beings, and let’s see what happens. 

I also would caution that this is not so much about saving 

money. When you think about our children as our future and how 

much money should we be investing in those young people and in 

our future, and you look at the challenges facing us globally, this 

is a big amount of money, but it is not too much to be investing 

in our children and our future. 

I think what we are calling for as much as anything is better results for that money. 

I agree there could be some efficiencies and some of those dollars 

could then serve more young people, but I think it would be tough 

to hazard a guess until you got everybody at the table, because 

that is part of the problem, even this White House Task Force report didn’t know where the overlaps and the duplications were 

when they tried to analyze this problem. 

We have to get the agencies at the Federal and state levels sitting at the same table to say how can we clear the clutter, get rid 

of the unnecessary paperwork, and take care of kids. 

Mr. MOORE. I’ve been with state government for some time now, 

and I have seen lean times where budgets are cut tremendously 

and I have seen good times in terms of revenue. 

I didn’t come here today to try to help understand or help describe how much money we could save or how much money we 

need. I came here today to talk about how whatever money there 

is available, we can do better things with it. 

56

Whatever money you give to the states, we are going to do as 

good as we can. Any additional help you can give us, other ways 

of coordinating and flexibility, so we can help local folks coordinate 

is what I think this discussion is about. 

Mr. RYAN. I appreciate that. I agree. I think regardless of what 

the savings may be here, which I think can be significant, I still 

think 50 percent graduation rates and all the statistics that you 

have said, we have to make greater investments. 

I think we owe an obligation to the taxpayer to make sure that 

this is invested properly and efficiently and everything else. 

I think you guys bring up some great points not only with youth 

development. Congressman Osborne, this is terrific. I hope this can 

be a model for what we do with health care and what we do with 

a lot of other things in Government, to look at this as a system. 

We do the same thing in the schools. We have junk food in the 

schools and candy and pop and everything else, and then we wonder why many years later these kids have certain diseases or are 

susceptible to certain diseases. 

I think this is a good opportunity for us to have this broader discussion. I thank you very much. 

One question for Dr. Steinberg. Maybe you can help us understand, too, and we talked about music, and the Chairman talked 

about music and the arts and they are what I think will end up 

being a great opportunity for all of us to figure out what the mental health and abused kids—I know a family that has three kids, 

all grew up in a terrible environment. Two are in sports. One is 

in speech, debate, drama and music. 

By far, the one who is in drama and music is much healthier 

emotionally than I think the others are. 

Why is that? Why are these studies coming out that music and 

music therapy and these kinds of things—why are the arts effective 

in this regard? 

Dr. STEINBERG. I think it just may be the case for that family. 

Lots of kids do very well in athletic activities. Others don’t connect 

with sports but connect more with music or art. 

I think the key point is that we need to provide opportunities for 

all kids to connect to something, and that is what is going to make 

a difference in keeping them healthy and helping them make a successful transition into adulthood. 

We don’t fund music and arts as much as we ought to, and they 

are certainly not as well funded as athletic activities are, and that 

is a problem that we need to address. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, 

I don’t play a musical instrument. I don’t sing. I don’t dance. I 

don’t do anything. 

I see a trend happening with kids who are provided with that opportunity and others who are not. 

I thank you very much. I think this is great. Mr. Osborne, thank 

you for doing this. This is wonderful. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for having the hearing. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. So, it’s not true about 

one of your colleagues from Ohio, what he says about you and your 

dancing? 

[Laughter.] 

57

Mr. RYAN. Not true. 

Chairman TIBERI. Not true? OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Osborne, for your leadership again. I want to 

thank the four of you for the time that you spent here today, the 

work that you are doing out in the field, your testimony. It was 

very helpful as we move forward. 

I want to thank the Members for their time and participation 

today, and if there is no further business before us today, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ